JOGENDRA KUMAR PANDA,SAMBALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 524/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 July 2025AY 2017-181 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the sale transaction clearly pertained to AY 2016-17 and not AY 2017-18. Although the AO examined the cash receipt and noted a contravention of Section 269SS for AY 2017-18, no addition was made. The Tribunal held that the violation, if any, should have been considered in AY 2016-17.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold an immovable property for ₹39,20,000 in cash via a sale deed dated 23.03.2016. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially accepted the transaction. However, penalty proceedings under Section 271D were initiated for violation of Section 269SS, referencing AY 2017-18.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271D is leviable for a transaction relating to a previous assessment year when initiated for a different assessment year?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 269SS,Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK” BENCH, CUTTACK

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, ARs
For Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR
Hearing: 17.07.2025Pronounced: 17.07.2025

O R D E R PER PENCH:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in appeal no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070028931(1) dated 29.10.2024 for A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

Shri P.K. Mishra represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao B, represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had vide sale deed dated 23.03.2016, sold certain land being immovable property for sale a consideration of ₹39,20,000/-, which was received in cash. It was the submission that the ld. AO had examined sale deed and had accepted the transactions. The assessment order was also passed accepting the transaction. It was the submission that subsequently, for the A.Y. 2017- 18, the JCIT, Range-1, has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271D

4.

In reply, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that it was a typographical error in respect of the assessment year and that it was a technical issue, whereas there was a total violation of the provisions of the Section 269SS of the Act and that the assessment year should be read as A.Y. 2016-17.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly show that for the assessment year that the transaction of the sale of the land was by a sale deed dated 23.03.2016, relevant to the A.Y. 2016-17. A perusal of the assessment order for the A.Y. 2017-18 also clearly shows that the ld. AO has examined the issue of the amount of ₹39,20,000/- received in cash for the A.Y. 2017-18 and has held that there was a contravention of the provision of Section 269SS of the Act and the penal provision of section 271D of the Act are attracted. However, no addition in respect of the said cash deposit of ₹39,20,000/- has been made. Admittedly, as the transaction of the sale of the land is relevant to the A.Y. 2016-17, the violation if at all should be considered in the A.Y. 2016-17, which admittedly has not been done. The said violation if any does not relate to the A.Y. 2017-18. Consequently, we are of the view that the penalty levied by the ld. AO

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2025.

More judgments on Section 269SS

All 1,429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 269SS →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →