SHRI JATINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1, AMRITSAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 231/ASR/2022Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 June 2023AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in penalizing the appellant without providing them a copy of the sale deed and adequate opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The appellant challenged a penalty order under Section 271D, arguing that the CIT(A) confirmed it without properly considering documentary evidence like the sale deed. The appellant claimed they were not provided a copy of the sale deed, which formed the basis of the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271D was rightly confirmed without providing the appellant with the sale deed and a proper opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Hearing: 08.08.2023Pronounced: 13.06.2023

In the captioned appeal, the appellant has challengedthe order of the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 31.10.2022 in respect of Assessment Year: 2012-13, in violation of principles of natural justice.

2.

At the outset the learned counsel for the assesse summited that the CIT Appeal erred in confirming penalty under section 271D of the income

Assessment Year: 2018-19 tax act 1961, levied in violation to the provisions of section 269SS of the act. The learned AR submitted that the CIT was not justified in upholding, the penalty order passed under section 271D of the income tax act by the assessing officer without rebutting the documentary evidence, the copy of the sale deed, which was the subject matter, forming the basis for the order of the levy of penalty under section 271D of the act. The AR explained that he filed all detail written submissions before CIT appeal, along with documentary evidence to explain that the sum paid was not in contravention to the provisions of section 269SS of the act (APB, Pgs 30).

He also requested that the appellant may be supplied the copy of the sale deed, forming the very basis of the alleged transaction in contravention to section 269SS of the act. Accordingly, he pleaded that, the matter may be remanded back to the file of the learned CIT appeal with the direction to adjudicate the matter afresh after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

3.

Per contra, the learned additional CIT DR has supported the impugned order. However, he has no objection to the request of appellant is remanding the matter back to the file of the CIT appeal.

4.

We have heard both sides and perused the material on record. The CIT appeal has observed that the appellant has not furnished any cogent

Assessment Year: 2018-19 explanation regarding the reasonable cause for accepting cash of Rs. 4 lakhs towards sale Proceeds of the land in contravention to the provisions of section 269SS and 271D of the act. The CIT has further discussed that appellant has admitted that he had received sale proceeds of his land amounting to Rs. 4 lakhs in cash to clear his loan account with state bank of Patiala, and therefore subsequent submissions of any other documents is clearly, an afterthought to avoid the rigors of penalty under section 271D of the act. However, he has not discussed, the contents of the admission of the appellant assesse as regards to the cash receipt of 4 lakhs from sale proceeds of land.

5.

From the impugned order, it is evidence that the appellant has not been provided a copy of the sale deed, the basic document to determine the quantum, and the very nature of the receipts from sale proceeds of land held by the authorities below to be in contravention to the provisions of section 269SS of the act. In our view, it is necessary to provide the copy of the sale deed so as to enable the appellant assesse to explain the mode of transaction of receipt of the sale proceeds land in compliance to the provisions of section 269SS of the act.

6.

It is evident that the learned CIT appeal has used the information against appellant buthe didn’t rebut the said information to the appellant,

Assessment Year: 2018-19 though it goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, the CIT was not justified in penalizing, the appellant unheard in view of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we consider it deem fit to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT Appeal to adjudicate the issue of levy of penalty under section 271D afresh, after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard, after providing the copy of the sale deed, and other information to the assesse in rebuttal. Thus, the matter is restored to the CIT Appeal. No doubt, the appellant assesse shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the learned CIT Appeal.

7.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for the statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13 /06/2023

More judgments on Section 271D

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →