CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel

315 ITR 163High Court2009#1522 most cited

What is CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel authority for?

A genuine personal transaction or a non-returnable transfer between family members or related entities does not constitute a 'loan' or 'deposit' under Section 269SS, and therefore, no penalty can be levied under Section 271D.

75

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel · Section 269SS · Section 271D · loan or deposit · genuine transaction · personal expenses · inter-family transfer · penalty deletion · violation 269SS · non-returnable

Also reported as

183 Taxmann 53

Sections most often in play

Section 271DSection 271ESection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 269TSection 44ABSection 254

Issues it is cited on

section 269tsection 269ssection 271epenalty under section 271dsection 269section 273section 269sssection 271ddeletion of penaltysection 273blevy of penaltysection 26

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel

VIJAYARANGAM RANGANATH PRAVHAKAR,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 274

…ner of Income Tax, Range – 12 on 10-05- 2019 b) Smt. Deepika, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 5 on 13-10-2017 c) ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Dr.B.G.Panda vis DCIT [2000] 111 Taxman 86 (Cal) (MAG) d) CIT vs Sunil Kumar Geol [2009] 315 ITR 163/183 Taxman 53, the Honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court Page 9 of 11 An affidavit declaration sworn by me to this effect that the above said amount is non-returnable to the HUF and it was transferred to my individual account irrevocably as non-returnable, is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal.” 13. Considering the facts and circumstance…

MENACHERY ANTONY JOS,PALAKKAD vs. JCIT, PALAKKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 298/COCH/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 271ESection 44A

…t’ as the money was paid to wife for meeting personal expenses and also because of genuineness of the transaction no penalty can be levied placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunilkumar Goel [2009] 315 ITR 163. However, the learned CIT(A) rejected the above submission and confirmed the levy of penalty. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the subject transaction is purely a personal transaction and it cannot be termed as ‘loan’ placing reliance…

MENACHERY ANTONY JOS,PALAKKAD vs. JCIT, PALAKKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 297/COCH/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 271ESection 44A

…t’ as the money was paid to wife for meeting personal expenses and also because of genuineness of the transaction no penalty can be levied placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunilkumar Goel [2009] 315 ITR 163. However, the learned CIT(A) rejected the above submission and confirmed the levy of penalty. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the subject transaction is purely a personal transaction and it cannot be termed as ‘loan’ placing reliance…

MENACHERY ANTONY JOS,PALAKKAD vs. JCIT, PALAKKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 296/COCH/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 271ESection 44A

…t’ as the money was paid to wife for meeting personal expenses and also because of genuineness of the transaction no penalty can be levied placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunilkumar Goel [2009] 315 ITR 163. However, the learned CIT(A) rejected the above submission and confirmed the levy of penalty. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the subject transaction is purely a personal transaction and it cannot be termed as ‘loan’ placing reliance…

MENACHERY ANTONY JOS,PALAKKAD vs. JCIT, PALAKKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 295/COCH/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 271ESection 44A

…t’ as the money was paid to wife for meeting personal expenses and also because of genuineness of the transaction no penalty can be levied placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunilkumar Goel [2009] 315 ITR 163. However, the learned CIT(A) rejected the above submission and confirmed the levy of penalty. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the subject transaction is purely a personal transaction and it cannot be termed as ‘loan’ placing reliance…

MENACHERY ANTONY JOS,PALAKKAD vs. JCIT, PALAKKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 294/COCH/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 271ESection 44A

…t’ as the money was paid to wife for meeting personal expenses and also because of genuineness of the transaction no penalty can be levied placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunilkumar Goel [2009] 315 ITR 163. However, the learned CIT(A) rejected the above submission and confirmed the levy of penalty. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the subject transaction is purely a personal transaction and it cannot be termed as ‘loan’ placing reliance…

SHRI PRAKASH JIWANDAS WANJARI,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 232/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273ASection 80C

…ent to attract the relief under section 273B of the said Act. It must also be established that for some bona fide reasons the assessee could not get a loan or deposit by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft." iii. CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel (2009) 315 ITR 163 (Puj. &Har.), it has been held that cash transactions with sister concern which had no tax effect, established 'reasonable cause' under section 273B of the Act, therefore, no penalty under section 271D is leviable. iv. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kum. A.B. Shanthi (supra) has clearly laid down that if there is a genuine and bona fide…

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 1022/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

…oubt and transactions were bona-fide and in normal course of business kindly refer ACIT Vs. Alfa Hydrome Pvt. Ltd. ITAT Jodhpur Bench in ITA No. 191/Jd/1999 DT. 01.07.2004. KANHIYA LAL SAIN VS JCIT, RANGE-7, JAIPUR 7.4 In the case of CIT v/s Sunil Kumar Goyal 315 ITR 163(P&H) held that The income –tax Appellate Tribunal was right in recording its conclusion that a ‘reasonable cause’ had been shown by the respondent – assessee. The income-tax Appellate Tribunal relied on the fact that the respondent –assessee had produced his cash books, depicting loans taken by him unilaterally before the Revenue. Another fact ta…

KULDEEP SOOD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1745/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satyan Sethi &For Respondent: Ms Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 27I

…n benefit of couple’s personal need or the family’s personal need, then there is no ‘loan’ transaction for the purpose of section 269SS of the Act. 6. In this context we rely Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel [2009] 315 ITR 163, where Hon’ble High Court has held as under: “A family transaction, between two independent assessees, based on an act of casualness, especially in a case where the disclosure thereof was contained in the compilation of accounts, and which had no tax effect, established ‘reasonable cause’ under section 273B of the Act. Since the assessee had sat…

TARAI TRANSPORT CORPORATION,SILIGURI vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 273/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

…r had the scope of extending the verification for the purpose of determining Revenue Leakage. 8. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred by misinterpreting that the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H-HC) was not applicable in the case of the appellant. 9. That the penalty order confirmed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is bad in law. unlawful and unjustified and the same should be quashed and your appellant be given such reliefs) as prayed for. 10. That the appellant craves your Ld. permission to add. amend or modified the above on or before th…

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

…the assessee placed at paper book page 21 & 22 before us. Therefore, no penalty is leviable against the assessee company. Reliance is placed on the following judgments : (i). CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., 285 ITR 221 (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 ord…

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

…the assessee placed at paper book page 21 & 22 before us. Therefore, no penalty is leviable against the assessee company. Reliance is placed on the following judgments : (i). CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., 285 ITR 221 (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 ord…

GOPINATH KANDURI ,KADAPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, KADAPA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 219/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 219/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gopinath Kanduri, Income Tax Officer, Kadapa Vs. Ward-1, [PAN No. AEJPK9142E] Kadapa अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारितीती द्वारा /Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, AR राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR /Revenue by: सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date of hearing: 07/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीखरीख/Pronouncement on: 13/09/2023 आद…

SHRI BALBIR SINGH M/S JAIDEEP GIFT CENTRE TAPTEJ SINGH MARKET,MOGA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MOGA RANGE MOGA, MOGA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 746/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

…s otherwise than by account payee cheque or demand draft. Hence where the transactions entered in cash are genuine and reasonable cause, as required u/s 273B, is shown penalty u/s 271 E/27 ID is not called for. In the case of CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H) it has been mentioned that under section 273B, the assessee is permitted to show cause and tender explanation. The explanation of the assessee was found to be bona fide by the tribunal and it was also held that it was not aimed at avoiding any tax liability. The genuineness of the transaction was accepted. In the case of CIT vs. Balaji Tra…

SHRI BALBIR SINGH M/S JAIDEEP GIFT CENTRE, TAPTEJ SINGH MARKET ,MOGA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MOGA RANGE , MOGA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 745/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 27Section 271D

…s otherwise than by account payee cheque or demand draft. Hence where the transactions entered in cash are genuine and reasonable cause, as required u/s 273B, is shown penalty u/s 271 E/27 ID is not called for. In the case of CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H) it has been mentioned that under section 273B, the assessee is permitted to show cause and tender explanation. The explanation of the assessee was found to be bona fide by the tribunal and it was also held that it was not aimed at avoiding any tax liability. The genuineness of the transaction was accepted. In the case of CIT vs. Balaji Tra…

SRI RAJA REDDY NALLA,WARANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 519/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 69

…e ld. AR had relied upon the following decisions to buttress his submissions : 1. CIT Vs. Emeskay Financial Services Ltd – 128 TTJ 474 – Visakhapatnam Bench. 2. Royal Metal Printers (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT – 37 SOT 139 – Mumbai Bench. 3. CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel – 315 ITR 163 – Punjab and Haryana High Court. 4. Citizen Co-operative Society Vs. ACIT – ITAT Hyderabad Bench. 5. Ch. Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. ITO – Order dt.01.12.2015 of ITAT Hyderabad Bench. 6. CIT Vs. M. Ramakrishnan – 378 ITR 437 of Madras High Court. 7. PCIT Vs. JKD Capital and Finlease Ltd – 378 ITR 614 of Delhi High Court. 8. ACIT Vs. BBL Foods Pvt. Ltd.…

M/S LOK VIKAS HOUSING FUNDS LTD.( NOW LOK VIKAS HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. THE ADDL.CIT RANGE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/JPR/1999[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 254(1)Section 269DSection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…essentially a finding of fact and no question of law much less a substantial question of law would arise, we do not have any hesitation to hold that it may not be proper for this Court to interfere with such a finding of fact. CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H) (HC) (Case Laws Compilation PB 30-35) The Hon’ble High Court at Para 14 of the order held as under:- 14. The Tribunal was right in recording its conclusion that a "reasonable cause" had been shown by the respondent assessee. The Tribunal relied on the fact that the respondent assessee had produced his cash books, depicting loans taken by hi…

M/S H. K. INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD ,VARANSI vs. JOINT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANSI

ITA 46/ALLD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Viswakarma,CITD.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

…303 ITR 9(All. HC). ITA No.46/Alld./2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. H.K. Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. Allahabad U.P. v. JCIT, Varanasi b) Judgment and Order passed by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunil Goyal, reported in (2005) 274 ITR 53(P&H HC). c) Appellate order passed by Delhi-tribunal in the case of Ajay Goel v. ACIT, reported in (2010) 126 ITD 89(Del-trib.) d) Appellate order passed by Pune-tribunal in the case of ITO v. Sunil M Kasliwal, reported in (2005) 94 ITD 281(Pune-trib.(TM)) e) Appellate order passed by Delhi-tribunal in the case of Mehak Singh v.ITO, reported in (2…

ASSANAR & SONS,KOTTAYAM vs. JTCIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 191/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Cherian, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 269TSection 271E

…2) 51 SOT 53 (Mum.) (Trib.). 11) ACIT vs. Vinman Finance & Leasing Ltd. (2009) 120 TTJ (Visakha) (TM) 462. 12) ACIT vs. Alfa Hydromec (P) Ltd. (2006) 99 TTJ (Jd.) 405. 13) CIT vs. Shri Waheguru Singh 2008 (12) TMI 33 (P&H). 14) CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Goel (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H). Assanar & Sons, Kottayam Page 4 of 13 15) CIT vs. Ratna Agencies (2006) 284 ITR 609 (Mad.). 16) Farrukhabad Investment (I) Ltd. vs JCIT (2003) 85 ITD 230 (Del.). 17) ITO vs. VS. Hostel, 2012 (11) TMI 463 (Guj.) 18) CIT vs. Mahabal Shetty, 2011 (9) TMI 189 (Bom.). 14. The Ld. DR drew our attention to the following details of repayments: 1…

ANURADHA CHIVUKULA CHALLA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, RANGE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 585/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(It)A No.585/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Smt.Anuradha Chivukula Challa The Additional Commissioner No.12, Seshu, 12Th Cross Of Income-Tax, International V. Indiranagar 1St Stage Taxation, Range – 1 Bangalore – 560 038. Bangalore. Pan : Bgapc8765M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 08.06.2022. The Order Of The Cit(A) Arises Out Of The Order Of A.O. Imposing Penalty U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017- 2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Imposed U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…imposition of penalty under section 271D against the assessee cannot be sustained in law.” 11. Similar view has been held by the following judicial pronouncements:- 8 IT(IT)A No.585/Bang/2022 Smt.Anuradha Chivukula Challa. (i) CIT v Sunil Kumar Goel (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H) (ii) CIT v. Smt.M.Yesodha (2013) 351 ITR 265 (Mad.) (iii) Rajiana Kheti Store v. ITO (2008) 20 SOT 3 (Asr) (URO). 12. In the light of the above said reasoning and the judicial pronouncements, cited supra, we delete the penalty imposed u/s 271D of the I.T.Act. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced…

Showing 1–20 of 75 · Page 1 of 4