GOURI SANKAR PATRO,GANJAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, BERHAMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 700/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 February 2026AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (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 held that the sale consideration of Rs. 50,008/- was received on the sale of agricultural property. Therefore, Section 269SS of the Act was not applicable to the facts of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold agricultural land for Rs. 50,008/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 269SS of the Act and treated this as a loan or deposit, levying penalty under Section 271D. The assessee argued that it was not a loan or deposit.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Act for alleged violation of Section 269SS is sustainable when the amount was received from sale of agricultural land and not a loan or deposit.

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

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Hearing: 03/02/2026Pronounced: 03/02/2026

O R D E R

Per George Mathan, JM :

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2019-2020, thereby confirming the of penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act.

2.

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee had sold agricultural land and had received sale consideration of Rs.50,008/-. It was the submission that the AO invoked the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and treated the same as loan of deposits and levied penalty u/s.271D of the Act. It was submission that this was not a loan on deposits. It was prayer that the penalty as levied u/s.271D of the Act may be cancelled.

More judgments on Section 269SS

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →