V.K. MAHESWARI,DINDIGAL vs. ACIT NON CORP RANGE 2, MADURAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case, considering the principle of natural justice. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case, failing which the CIT(A) can proceed on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 concerns a penalty of Rs. 11.50 Lacs levied under Section 271D for receiving sale consideration of immovable property in cash, violating Section 269SS. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) or the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under Section 271D was rightly confirmed without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. The need to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ/वाल ,लेखा सद4 एवं माननीय +ी मनु कुमार िग7र, �ाियक सद4 के सम8। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt V.K. Maheswari ACIT, बनाम/ #68, AKMG Nagar, Karur Road, Non-Corporate Range-2 Vs. Dindigul-624 005. Madurai. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AFBPM-7361-N (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ� कीओरसे/ Appellant by : None � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 30-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30-11-2023 confirming penalty of Rs.11.50 Lacs as levied by Ld. AO u/s.271D on 07-09-2022 on the allegation that the assessee received sale consideration on transfer of immovable property in cash in contravention to the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.
The registry has noted a delay of 30 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee. Considering the period of delay, the delay is condoned and we proceed for disposal of the appeal. 3. Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee has failed to make any representation therein. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty in the absence of any explanation. Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. Accordingly, the appeal is restored back to learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with disposal of appeal on merits. 4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 6th May, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद4 / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद4 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 06-05-2024 DS आदेशकीNितिलिपअ/ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF
More judgments on Section 271D
- Sujatha Vaddanapu, Nalgonda vs ITO, Ward-1, NalgondaITA 2048/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Inder Lal Ramrakhyani, Dhamtari vs ITO, DhamtariITA 694/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Harshit Singhania Buildcon, RaipurITA 560/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shree Jalaram Finance, Borsad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4), PetladITA 1785/AHD/2026[2000-01]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- Veera Mani Kumari Vattikooti, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward -11(1), HyderabadITA 1218/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026