KATASANI THIRUPAL REDDY,ANDHRA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDYAL., NANDYAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 372/HYD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 August 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI MANJUNATHA G., ACCOUNTANTMEMBER, SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted that the sale proceeds were inadvertently mentioned as Rs.9,38,000/- instead of the actual Rs.21,42,000/-. The Tribunal issued a corrigendum to rectify this factual error in its previous order.

What were the facts?

The ITAT Hyderabad Bench passed an order on 05.07.2024, quashing a penalty levied under Section 271D. The assessee filed a petition for corrigendum, pointing out an error in the calculation of sale proceeds mentioned in the original order.

What were the issues?

Whether there was a factual error in the calculation of sale proceeds in the previous ITAT order. The issue is about correcting a factual mistake in a prior judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

This Tribunal passed an order on 05.07.2024, quashing the penalty levied u/s 271D of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) in the case of Shri Katasani Thirupal Reddy (assessee). The assessee filed a petition for corrigendum, observing that at para 9 of the order passed, the Tribunal noted the sale proceeds at Rs.9,38,000/- as against the actual sale proceeds of Rs.21,42,000/- and hence, prayed to pass necessary corrigendum.

2.

We have gone through the petition filed by the assessee and order passed by the Tribunal dated 05.07.2024. We admit that at para 9 of the order, the sale proceeds received by the assessee was inadvertently mentioned as Rs.9,38,000/- as against the actual sale proceeds of Rs.21,42,000/-. In view of the same, this corrigendum is issued and we hereby modify para 9 of the order as under :

9.

In the present case before us, it is an admitted fact that the assessee received the amount of cash of Rs.21,42,000/- not as advance, but as the final payment in front of the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration for sale of property. While respectfully following the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of R.Dhinagharan(HUF) (supra), we hold that there is no violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act in the present case in the given facts and circumstances and hence, penalty under section 271D of the Act is not leviable. Hence, we allow the grounds raised by the assessee.

3.

All other contents of the Tribunal order dated 05.07.2024 shall remain unchanged and this corrigendum should be read as part and parcel of the Tribunal order dated 05.07.2024.

More judgments on Section 271D

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →