JOGENDRA KUMAR PANDA,SAMBALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR
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.
Held
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.
Key Issues
Whether penalty under Section 271D is leviable for a transaction relating to a previous assessment year when initiated for a different assessment year?
Sections Cited
269SS, 271D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK” BENCH, CUTTACK
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK” BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA No. 524/CTK/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jogendra Kumar Panda Income Tax Officer, AT-Kuretula, PO-Sakhipara Ward 2(1), Sambalpur Road, P.S. Sakhigopinath, Dist. Ainthapali Dist, Sambalpur- Vs. Sambalpur-768001, Odisha 768004, Odisha (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. BDHPP2043P Assessee by : Shri P.K. Mishra, ARs Revenue by : Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR Date of hearing: 17.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 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.
Shri P.K. Mishra represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao B, represented on behalf of the Revenue.
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
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.
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
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 17.07.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack
