MAHESH,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(4) , HAYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 121/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 November 2024AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that both the Rs. 8 lakhs addition and the Rs. 9.5 lakhs, for which penalty was levied, represented cash sale consideration, not unexplained income or loans violating section 269SS. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the addition and deleted the penalty, allowing both appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed twin appeals against orders for AY 2010-11, challenging the addition of Rs. 8 lakhs as unexplained income under section 68 and a penalty of Rs. 9.5 lakhs under section 271D for allegedly accepting cash loans. The core issue revolved around Rs. 17.50 lakhs claimed to be received from Shri Bhoop Singh as cash sale consideration, which the lower authorities partially rejected, treating it as a loan or unexplained cash.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in the bank account constitute unexplained income under section 68, and whether the acceptance of cash amounts represents a violation of section 269SS attracting penalty under section 271D.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 68,Section 269SS

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 441 ITR 722
    441 ITR 722 · 2022 · SC
    162 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv.; &, Shri Prateek Kumar, adv
Hearing: 13.11.2024Pronounced: 29.11.2024

O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: These assessee’s twin appeals & 121/Del/2023 for assessment year 2010-11 arise against Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals)-1, & Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals)-2,Gurgaon’s as many orders dated 31.05.2019 & 31.01.2019 passed in case nos. 111/2018-19 & 429/17-18, in proceedings u/s 271D and 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

2.

Delay of 1269 and 1389 days in filing of the instant twin appeals is condoned as per the assessee’s condonation averments and keeping in mind the fact that the same also include time period from 15.3.2020 to 19.10.2020 , which has already been directed to be excluded for all purposes by the hon’ble apex court in its land mark decision in Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation, In re. (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC).

3.

I now proceed to deal with the relevant facts wherein the assessee is aggrieved in quantum appeal 148/147 proceedings, thereby treating cash deposits of Rs. 8,00,000/- deposited in his bank account as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. The penalty appeal on the other hand, is directed against learned lower authorities’ action levying 271D penalty of Rs. 9.50 lakhs on the ground that he had violated section 269SS of the Act in accepting cash loans.

4.

Both the parties could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the entire issue has arisen on account of the assessee having claimed to have availed cash loans of Rs. 17.50 lakhs from one Shri Bhoop singh. There is no denial to the fact that the said person had duly put in appearance during scrutiny and deposed in assessee’s favour to have given the entire amount of Rs. 17.50 lakhs, which stood restricted to Rs. 9.5 lakhs only on the ground that his share in the sale deed could prove only 9.5 lakhs. I note in this factual backdrop that the said person had co-executed the sale document and both of them received cash sale consideration amounting to Rs. 17.50 lakhs, which in turn, was stated to be given to his relative i.e. the assessee. All these facts sufficiently indicate that both the lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s foregoing explanation going by the said relative’s share only than the entire explanation which had to be considered in the light of given probabilities and the relation between the parties. I, thus, see no reason to sustain the impugned

5.

Coming to the assessee’s penalty appeal seeking to delete 271D penalty of Rs. 9.5 lakhs representing cash loans from one Shri Bhoop singh, I find that the same represents cash sale consideration and, therefore, it would not attract violation of section 269SS of the Act, deleted accordingly. This appeal is accepted.

No other ground or argument has been pressed.

6.

These assessee’s twin appeals and 121/Del/2023 are allowed.

Copy of this common order be placed in respective case files.

Order pronounced in open court on 29.11.2024

More judgments on Section 271D

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →