ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. KNS MEMORIAL, VIKAS KHAND-II, GOMTI NAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, finding that separate bills were issued for distinct medical services, none of which exceeded Rs. 2,00,000. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, clarifying that a patient's admission and treatment do not automatically constitute a single 'event' or 'occasion' under section 269ST, especially when services are billed individually rather than as a composite package. Since no single transaction exceeded the prescribed cash limit, the penalty under section 271DA was not leviable.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a nursing home (KNS Memorial), received cash payments exceeding Rs. 2,00,000 against 51 bills/transactions in FY 2017-18, totaling Rs. 1,43,01,202. The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty of Rs. 1,43,01,202 under section 271DA for contravening section 269ST, by treating the total medical expenses for each patient as a single transaction. The assessee argued that separate bills were issued for different medical services, and no single bill exceeded the Rs. 2,00,000 cash receipt limit.
What were the issues?
Whether separate billings for various medical services provided to a single patient should be considered individual transactions or a single composite transaction for the purpose of cash receipt restrictions under Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 269ST,Section 271DA,Section 285BA(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW
PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, dated 18.07.2024, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271DA vide his order dated 8.03.2019 for the A.Y. 2018-19. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred by facts and law by deleting the Penalty of Rs. 1,43,01,202/- as receiving of cash exceeding Rs. 2,00,000 against a single bill constitutes a violation of the provisions of section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as no person shall receive an amount of two lakh rupees or more in aggregate from a person in a day, or in respect of a single transaction or in respect of transaction relatin
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 269ST
- Sujatha Vaddanapu, Nalgonda vs ITO, Ward-1, NalgondaITA 2048/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Aryanparv Realty LLP, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 3 3 1, AhmedabadITA 910/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Guwahati vs Harvinder Singh Sehgal, Thangal Bazar…ITA 379/GTY/2025[2021]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026
- Harvinder Singh Sehgal, Manipur vs Central Circle-2, GuwahatiITA 374/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Yashbiz Marketing Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2364/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026