DHANWANTA ABHIMAN ATHAWALE,AMRAVATI vs. JCIT AMRAVATI RANGE, AMRAVATI

Date of Hearing – 26/11/2024 Date of Order – 28/11/2024

O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 19/12/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18.

“1) The Order passed by ld. A.Q based upon incorrect assumption of jurisdiction us invalid and bad-in–law as the same is based upon incorrect assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 271D by the CIT, Amravati. 2) Without prejudice, the Impugned Order passed by Officer (NFAC) is passed without following principles of natural justice and hence be kindly quashed.

2 Dhanwanta Abhiman Athawale 3) Without prejudice, the Impugned Order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is passed without following principles of natural justice and hence be kindly quashed. 4) Without prejudice, the Impugned Order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. Assessing Officer (NFAC), to the extent prejudicial to the appellant, is not justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case; 5) Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer have erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that there is no violation of provisions of Section 26955 of the Act for the relevant assessment year; 6) Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that penalty is not leviable under Section 2710 of the Act, 7) Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A), Assessing Officer (NFAC) and JCIT, Amravati have erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the explanations submitted and request made by the Appellant in support of his contention; 8) The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts by raising demand vide issue of notice under Section 156 of the Act. 9) On the basis of these grounds and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing with the consent of Honourable Tribunal, it is prayed that the Order passed under Section 250, to the extent it is against the Appellant, be quashed and relief sought be granted.”

3 Dhanwanta Abhiman Athawale 5. We find that the assessee being a small agriculturist and sold small piece of land and received sale consideration in cash, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act. Thus, we hold that the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying penalty under section 271D which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, in the interest of justice and by following the principles of natural justice, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and delete the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act by allowing all the grounds raised by the assessee.