Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 269SS, Section 271D, Section 273B, Section 143(3), Section 271E, Section 153A.

Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi

Q: How many judgments cite Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi?

61 judgments on BharatTax cite Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi (255 ITR 258), spanning 2012 to 2026.

255 ITR 258Supreme Court of India2002#1867 most cited

What is Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi authority for?

The Supreme Court upholds the constitutional validity of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prohibits certain cash loans and deposits. This ruling is foundational for penalties under Section 271D and considering exemptions under Section 273B.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi · A.B. Shanthi SC · constitutional validity Section 269SS · penalty under Section 271D · Section 269SS Income Tax Act · Section 271D penalty cash transaction · Section 273B penalty waiver · validity of provisions 269SS · taking cash loan penalty · accepting cash deposit penalty · 255 ITR 258

Sections most often in play

Section 269SS Section 271D Section 273B Section 143(3)Section 271E Section 153A Section 269T Section 2(14)

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271d section 269s section 269t section 271bb section 272aa section 271fb penalty under section 271e section 271e section 273 section 272bb section 269ss section 271ca

Judgments citing Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi

DCIT Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Hotel Sukhamaya Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…reditors and hence, there was no evasion of tax. Further the Honourable Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kundrathur Finance & Chit Co. (supra) following the decision of Apex Court in Asstt. Director of Inspection (Investigation) Vs. Kum. A.B. Shanthi (255 ITR 258) held that if there was genuine and bona fide transaction and the taxpayer could not get a loan or deposit by account-payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reason, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty had a discretion not to levy penalty. In the case of Smt. Rupali R. Desai Vs. Addl. CIT (88 ITD 76), the Hon'ble Mumbai…

Sh. Prem Singh Saini, Sikar vs. Addl. CIT, Sikar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 952/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 269SSection 271D

…s where the amount of such loan or deposit, together with the aggregate amount remaining unpaid on the date on which such loan or deposit is proposed to be taken, is Rs. 10,000 or more. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ADIT(Inv.) Vs. Kum. A.B. Shanthi (2002) 255 ITR 258, 263 has also observed that the object of introducing s. 269SS is to ensure that a taxpayer is not allowed to give false explanation for his unaccounted money, or if he has given some false entries in his accounts, he Sh. Prem Singh Saini vs. Addl. CIT shall not escape by giving false explanation for the same. During search and seizures, unaccoun…

Sh. Prem Singh Saini, Sikar vs. Addl. CIT, Sikar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 951/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 269SSection 271D

Income Tax Officer, Ward -4, Amravati vs. Shri Mahesh Shankar Sorate, Daryapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 250/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269TSection 271E

…. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made on either side. 6. This Court in CIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co. (283 ITR 329), following the decision of Apex Court in Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi (255 ITR 258), held that if there was genuine and bona fide transaction and the tax payer could not get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reason, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has a discretion not to levy penalty. 7. In the instant case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appella…

Tejendra Pal Singh Sahni, Kota vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 23/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Id. CIT(A)-2, Udaipur on 02.07.2019. The order confirming the levy of penalty was passed by ld. CIT(A)-2, Udaipur dated 18.09.2023 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order, as per current practice, was not served on the assessee through post. The said order was also uploaded on e-filing portal of the assessee. Accordingly, assessee was required to file an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT on or before 17.11.2023, being 60 days from the date of receipt of order. However, the present appea

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

…gainst them as there was no iota of independent evidence in support thereof - Held, yes –“ The object of enacted Section 269SS has already been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Director of Inspection v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi [2002] 255 ITR 258, while rendering the judgment, has explained the object of introduction of provisions of section 269SS, as under: 9 TAJENDER PAL SINGH VS JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, UDAIPUR “8. The object of introducing section 269SS is to ensure that a taxpayer is not allowed to give false explanation for his unaccounted money, or if he has given some false entries…

Amit Kapoor, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

ITA 1445/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

…be stated that while considering the issue of genuineness of the transaction, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vasan Healthcare P Ltd. reported in 103 taxmann.com 26 referred to the ruling of the Apex Court in Kum. A.B. Shanthi reported in 255 ITR 258 (SC). In the said ruling, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if there was a genuine and bonafide transaction and if for any reason the taxpayer could not get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bonafide reasons, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has got discretionary power. Therefore, the taxpayer…

Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, Tirupur vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Tirupur

ITA 1415/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri vs. Jagrut Motors, Ratnagiri

Appeal of the Revenue is DISMISSED

ITA 282/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri . . . . . . . . Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S Jagrut Motors, D-25, Midc, Mirjole, Ratnagiri– 415 639 Pan : Aadfj1431D . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/05/2024 Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Anent To Assessment Year 2012-13 [For Short ‘Ay’] Is Assailed Against The First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Cit(A) /Nfac’] Dt. 19/12/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Order Of Penalty Dt. 14/03/2019 Passed U/S 271E By The Jcit Ratnagiri Range, Ratnagiri [For Short ‘Ao’]

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 250Section 269SSection 269TSection 271ESection 273B

…assessee in light of the co-ordinate bench’s decision in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 534/PUN/2022 dt. 20/01/2023 wherein vide para 7 onwards it was held that; 7.1 We notice that, the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘ADA Investigation Vs Kumar AB Shanti’ reported in 255 ITR 258 explained the object behind insertion of section 269SS of the Act, as; "The object of introducing section 269SS is to ensure that a taxpayer is not allowed to give false explanation for his unaccounted money, or if he has given some false entries in his accounts, he shall not escape by giving false explanation for the same. During search and seiz…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Platinum Towers P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1307/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. N. Prasad, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1307/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 DCIT, Vs M/s Platinum Towers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1, K-91, Second Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II, Gurugram122016 New Delhi 110024 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAECP5640G Assessee by : Sh. Parikshit Agarwal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 01.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 05.01.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of…

ITO, Ward-2, Kancheepuram vs. Shri R. Dhinagharan (HUF), Kancheepuram

ITA 3329/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3329/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Shri R. Dhinagharan (Huf), Ward-2, Kanchipuram. Vs. 18, Gem Nagar, Sevilimedu, Kanchipuram – 631 502. [Pan: Aanhr-6593-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

Farman Khan, Chaksu vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa

Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…the ridding provision of Section 273B of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the introductory purpose of Section 269SS under XXB of the Act and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel, 93 ITR 26 and ADIT vs Kum. A.B. Shanthi, 255 ITR 258 in this regard. The penalty is not sustainable. 4. The ld. CIT(A) violated natural justice by denying assessee, the opportunity of being heard, through Video Conferencing as requested by the assessee. The order is ab initio void on this ground alone.’’ 2. The facts as emerges from the order of the ld. JCIT, Range-4, Jaipur (for short ‘’AO’’) rega…

Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal, Jhalawar vs. JCIT, Range-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 572/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

…or more. The prohibition will also apply in cases where the amount of such loan or deposit, together with the aggregate amount remaining unpaid on the date on which such loan or deposit is proposed to be taken, is Rs. 10,000 or more Hon’ble Supreme Court in 255 ITR 258, 263 has also observed that the object of introducing sec. 269SS is to ensure that a taxpayer is not allowed to give false explanation for his unaccounted money, or if he has given some false entries in his accounts, he shall not escape by giving false explanation for the same. During search and seizures, unaccounted money is unearthed and the ta…

M/S. Sofitra Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1749/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…Mad.) (ii). CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, 315 ITR 163 (P&H) (iii). CIT vs. Balaji Traders, 303 ITR 312 (Mad.) (iv). CIT vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog, 302 ITR 201 (Raj.) (v). CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria(HUF) 263 ITR 487 (Gau.) (vi). ADI vs. Kumari A.B. Shanthi, 255 ITR 258 (SC) (vii). Smt. Dimple Yadav Appeal No. 174 of 2015 dt. 21.08.2015(All). 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee clearly violated the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act and all the case laws relied by the ld. DR do not support the case of assessee because the a…

M/S. Sofitra Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1748/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Bhoom Reddy Komatireddy, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

ITA 652/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin. Sr. AR

Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

…urb the generation of black ,money and thus penalty is not to be proposed in each and every case for mere' breach of the provisions of sections 271D & 271E of the Act. The appellant also place my reliance on following decisions:-' (i) ADI-vs-KumariA.B.Shanthi 255 ITR 258 SC - The Hon'ble Apex court held that if there is a genuine and bona fide transaction and if for any reason the taxpayer cannot get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bona fide reasons, the authority vested with the power to impose penalty has got discretionary power not to levy penalty. (ii) CIT-vs-Saini Medical S…

DCIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Translands Infrastructure Developers P Ltd, Vashi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1913/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Translands Income-Tax, 15(3)(1), Infrastructure Developers Mumbai P. Ltd. Jn-3-14-5, Asshirwad Chs, Sector-09, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadct 0036 B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 3Section 68

…ayment to other party to whom amount was payable by appellant and crediting the account of M/s. DIPL who made payment on behalf of appellant. b) The purpose of introduction of section 269SS has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ADI vs A.B. Shanthi in 255 ITR 258 (SC) and relevant part is reproduced as under:- 6 DCIT vs. M/s Translands Infrastructure Developers P Ltd "3. Section 269SS was inserted by the Finance Act, 1984 with effect from 1-4-1984, but the same was made operative from 1-7- 1984. The Income- tax Department in course of searches carried out by them from time to time recovered large amounts…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Deepak Kumar, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1306/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Gurugram, Deepak Kumar, Haryana 122016 H.No. 13/2, Dlf Phase-1, Lower Vs. Ground Floor, Gurugram, Haryana Pan Aaapk 4112 D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri T. James Singson, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-34, New Delhi Dated 27.06.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(4) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Us 271D Of The Act Relying On The Order Of The Hon 'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, cAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT(DR)

Section 269S

…is to prevent evasion of tax. Whereas, the facts of the appellants clearly shows that the taxes have been paid by Spaze Towers as per the order of the Supreme Court and there is no evasion of tax. 32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kum. A.B. Shanthi 255 ITR 258 has held that the object of introducing the provisions of section 269SS of the Act is to ensure that the tax payer is not allowed to give false explanation for his unaccounted money. [8] 33. In the present cases, there is no dispute about the sources of money wherefrom the expenditure had been incurred which has already suffered taxation in the…

Delhi State Taxi Operators Co-Operative Thrift Credit & Services Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range - 60, New Delhi

ITA 3108/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

…f the Act. Vide write up dated 24.10.2018 submitted before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee gave brief facts on the functioning and governing of the assessee cooperative society. It was pointed out that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ADIT vs. AB Shanthi 255 ITR 258 (SC) relied upon by the Ld. JCIT actually supports the case of the assessee as the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed therein that undue hardship is very much mitigated by the inclusion of section 273B. If there was a genuine and bonafide transaction and if for any reason the taxpayer could not get a loan or deposit by account payee cheque or demand…

Delhi State Taxi Operators Co-Operative Thrift Credit & Services Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range - 60, New Delhi

ITA 3107/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

Ramachandran Bandhuvula, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 523/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ramachandran Vs. Income Tax Officer Bandhuvula, Hyderabad Ward 3(1) Pan:Aczpb3228M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) 15 Erroneous To The Extent It Is Prejudicial To The Appellant. 2. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Levy Of Penalty U/S 271D Of The I.T Act. Without Giving Proper Opportunity. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Observed That The Transaction Of Sale Doesn'T Fall During The Previous Year Relevant For Assessment Year Under Consideration As The Registration Took Place On. 20.01.2016 Relevant For The Assessment Year 2016-17. Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Advocate Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271D

…ereby CONFIRMED. 5.3.8. While confirming levy of penalty u/s 271 D of the I.T. Act 1961 , reliance is placed on the following authorities : (i) 245 ITR 661(Karn)-Chamundi Granites Pvt Ltd- While affirming the Hon.Karnataka High Court order, the Hon.Apex Court(255 ITR 258,266- SC) ruled that sec.269. which prescribes the mode of taking or accepting certain loans or deposits, is not discriminatory and is not violative of article 14 of the constitution; nor was it enacted by Parliament without legislative competence. It cannot be said that sec.269 SS deals with, a subject which is outside the scope of the Income Tax…