SUBRAT KUMAR PANIGRAHI,GANJAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 281/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 July 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal perused the bank statements and found that the assessee had received ₹14,07,500/- via RTGS from Pradeep Kumar Panigrahy and ₹5 lacs from Mr. Afroz Khan, totaling ₹19,07,500/-. This amount matched the sale consideration mentioned in the sale document. As the amounts were received through RTGS, it could not be treated as cash receipts.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order confirming a penalty levied under section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was imposed because the Assessing Officer (AO) assumed that the sale consideration for two properties, totaling ₹19,07,500/-, was received in cash, as cheque details were missing from the sale deed. The assessee contended that the amounts were received via RTGS.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under section 271D is leviable when the sale consideration was received through RTGS and not in cash, despite the absence of cheque details in the sale deed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK” BENCH, CUTTACK

For Appellant: Shri SK Sarangi, AR
For Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR
Hearing: 16.07.2025Pronounced: 16.07.2025

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/250/2024-25/1074324173(1) dated 11.03.2025 for the A.Y. 2019-20, against the confirmation of penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act.

2.

Shri SK Sarangi represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao P represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was the submission that the assessee had sold two properties for a total consideration of ₹19,07,500/-. It was the submission that in the sale deed the cheque details were not mentioned and therefore, the ld. AO assumed that the sale consideration has been received in cash and penalty had been levied. It was submitted before the ld. AO that ” 04. And page 8 of the Paper Book which is the passbook extract of ICICI bank read as under: -

5.

It was the submission that both the amounts have been received by RTGS and no penalty u/s 271D is leviable.

6.

In reply, the ld. SR DR vehemently relied on the order of the ld. lower authorities. It was the submission that the breakup of ₹19,07,500/- is not clear. It was the submission that the sale deed mentions the amount of ₹10,43,873/- which is not seen anywhere in the bank passbook.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.07.2025.

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →