← All Phrases

“penalty under section 271D”

PenaltySection 271DSection 271D244 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty under section 271D is P.V. Doshi v. CIT (113 ITR 22), cited in 179 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty under section 271D

P.V. Doshi v. CIT
113 ITR 22 · 1978 · High Court
179
citing judgments

The lack of jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 cannot be waived and can be challenged at a later stage, even if not raised initially. An invalid reassessment due to such jurisdictional defects cannot sustain subsequent penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Hissaria Bros.
291 ITR 244 · 2007 · High Court
132
citing judgments

Penalty proceedings for defaults under Sections 269SS and 269T are independent of assessment proceedings; therefore, the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for imposing such penalties is not contingent on the completion of appellate quantum proceedings.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd.
262 ITR 260 · 2003 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Journal entries for accepting or repaying loans and deposits, without any actual cash transaction, do not violate the provisions of Section 269SS or Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, such transactions do not attract penalties under Section 271D or Section 271E.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd.
345 ITR 270 · 2012 · High Court
114
citing judgments

Transactions involving the receipt or repayment of loans or deposits solely through journal entries, without actual cash movement, contravene Sections 269SS and 269T. However, penalties under Sections 271D or 271E for such contraventions are not imposable if the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause under Section 273B, particularly when no cash has passed between parties.

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills
379 ITR 521 · 2015 · Supreme Court
110
citing judgments

The assessing officer must record explicit satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings under sections like 271D, 271E, 269SS, 269T, or 269ST; a mere recommendation or information to another authority is insufficient to validate the penalty.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd.
394 ITR 312 · 2017 · High Court
86
citing judgments

The date of initiation of penalty proceedings for the purpose of Section 275(1)(c) is when the Assessing Officer records a satisfaction or recommends penalty, not the later date when the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issues the penalty notice.

CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel
315 ITR 163 · 2009 · High Court
75
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Hissaria Brothers
386 ITR 719 · 2016 · Supreme Court
68
citing judgments

The relevant date for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for passing penalty orders under Sections 271D and 271E is the date of passing the assessment order.

Judgments citing penalty under section 271D

Sandeep Kumar Sethia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 584/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

facts of the case. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by failing to annul the penalty under section 271D, violating principles of natural justice by not providing a reasonable opportunity to the Appellant. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty

Maheshwarappa Muniramu, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 757/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Sri Nagaraj K. H., CAFor Respondent: Sri Subramaniam, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 244ASection 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

273B, absence of reasonable cause, existence of which has to be established by the assessee, is the sine qua non. 9.6. Levy of penalty under section 271D is not automatic. Before levying penalty, that concerned officer is required to find out that Maheshwarappa Muniramu, Bangalore Page 15 of 16 even

Modern Engineering & Management Foundation, Balasore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Bhuabenswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 378/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271DSection 271E

Vassan Health Care Private Limited, reported in 125 taxman.com 266 has held that no satisfaction required to be recorded for the purpose of penalty under section 271D and E of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows ... Vassan Health Care Private Limited, referred to supra and has held that satisfaction is required to be recorded by the AO before initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act, consequently, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of this tribunal, confirmed

Modern Engineering & Management Foundation, Balasore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Bhuabenswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 377/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena & Shri Mohit Sheth, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271DSection 271E

Vassan Health Care Private Limited, reported in 125 taxman.com 266 has held that no satisfaction required to be recorded for the purpose of penalty under section 271D and E of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows ... Vassan Health Care Private Limited, referred to supra and has held that satisfaction is required to be recorded by the AO before initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act, consequently, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of this tribunal, confirmed

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjeev J Aeren, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 3933/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Acit, Cc-18, Vs. Sanjeev J. Aeren, Room No. 102, Ara Centre, Aerens Estate, Mall Road, E-2, Jhandewalan Extn., Kishan Garh, Behind New Delhi Pocket-D-Iii, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi (Pan: Aagpg8854J)) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Rajeshwar Painuly, Adv. Department By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-25, New Delhi Dated 31.03.2016 Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Ground:- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts In Deleting The Penalty U/S. 271D Of The Act Of Rs. 25 Crores Imposed On The Assessee For Violation Of Provisions Of Section 269Ss Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeshwar Painuly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271D

received cash loan amounting to Rs. 25 crores in contravention to the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and was liable for penalty under section 271D of the Act. Assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 31.03.2016 has allowed the appeal

Labtop Instruments Private Limited, Vasai vs. Addl. CIT, 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4916/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi SolaniFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Mcm Developers, Aurangabad vs. DCIT. Central Circle-1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 362/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 154Section 269SSection 270ASection 271DSection 40A(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Kanaka Chalam Volety, California vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1312/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 275

assessee requested the A.O. to keep in abeyance the penalty proceedings, but the A.O. rejected the request of the assessee and levied penalty under Section 271D of the Act, even though the appeal filed by the assessee is still pending for disposal. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) once again

Late Nimmatoori Raja Babu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 594/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Nimmatoori Sulochana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

assessee is liable for penalty u/sec.271D of the I.T. Act, 1961 being 100% of the amount received by way of cash. Accordingly, penalty under section 271D is levied on the assessee for receiving Rs.1,62,70,380/- by ways other an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft

Nimmatoori Yashoda, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 602/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

assessee is liable for penalty u/sec.271D of the I.T. Act, 1961 being 100% of the amount received by way of cash. Accordingly, penalty under section 271D is levied on the assessee for receiving Rs.1,62,70,380/- by ways other an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft

Gurubilli Veera Raghavamma, Gollaprolu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.366/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1(1) Gurubilli Veera Raghavamma Papayyachavad Veedhi Income Tax Office Gollaprolu, Gollaprolu Mandal Deepthi Towers, Main Road East Godavari District – 533445 Kakinada-533001 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Becpg1346G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 269SSection 271D

269SS of the Act, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"]issued notice dated 11.02.2021 requiring the assessee to explain why the penalty under section 271D of the Act could not be imposed. In response, assessee furnished her reply. Not convinced with the submissions and documents furnished ... short “Ld. AO"] completed the assessment by observing that assessee committed a default within the meaning of section 269SS and thereby imposed penalty under section 271D of the Act equal to the cash receipt i.e. Rs.11,76,000/-. 3. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/HYD/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

thereby losing its character as a ‘loan’ or ‘deposit’ within the meaning of Section 269SS, making the imposition of penalty under Section 271D legally unsustainable. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that once the amount in question has been treated as the appellant’s own income ... inapplicable, as upheld by various judicial precedents. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty under Section 271D without considering that the learned Assessing Officer (‘AO’) has also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/HYD/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

thereby losing its character as a ‘loan’ or ‘deposit’ within the meaning of Section 269SS, making the imposition of penalty under Section 271D legally unsustainable. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that once the amount in question has been treated as the appellant’s own income ... inapplicable, as upheld by various judicial precedents. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty under Section 271D without considering that the learned Assessing Officer (‘AO’) has also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 576/HYD/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

thereby losing its character as a ‘loan’ or ‘deposit’ within the meaning of Section 269SS, making the imposition of penalty under Section 271D legally unsustainable. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that once the amount in question has been treated as the appellant’s own income ... inapplicable, as upheld by various judicial precedents. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty under Section 271D without considering that the learned Assessing Officer (‘AO’) has also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged

Balreddy Gade, Secunderabad vs. Addl. CIT., Central Range-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 575/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

thereby losing its character as a ‘loan’ or ‘deposit’ within the meaning of Section 269SS, making the imposition of penalty under Section 271D legally unsustainable. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that once the amount in question has been treated as the appellant’s own income ... inapplicable, as upheld by various judicial precedents. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty under Section 271D without considering that the learned Assessing Officer (‘AO’) has also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged

Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. JCIT Central Range-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 5866/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.5866/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2020-21) Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O C.S. Anand, Adv. Central Circle-1, B-81, First Floor (Part B), Vs. Delhi. Defence Colony, Bhishma Pitamah Marg, New Delhi-110024. Pan-Aakcs6743D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shric.S. Anand & Ms. Vaishnavi Yadav, Advs. Department By Shrimanish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2025

Section 153CSection 269SSection 271D

behalf of the Aseem Doomra and Mr. Narender Kapoor as the case made out by the assessee. In fact that the JCIT imposed penalty under section 271D of the Act of Rs.25 lacks, equivalent to the alleged cash received by the appellant which was further confirmed by the First Appellant ... appears that the AO has not recorded satisfaction that the assessee made contravention to the provision of Section 269SS and, therefore, liable to penalty under section 271D of the Act rather simply informed the Addl. CIT, Central Range-1, Delhi to proceed against the assessee under section 271D

Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. JCIT Central Range-1, Delhi

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

ITA 5865/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.5866/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2020-21) Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O C.S. Anand, Adv. Central Circle-1, B-81, First Floor (Part B), Vs. Delhi. Defence Colony, Bhishma Pitamah Marg, New Delhi-110024. Pan-Aakcs6743D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shric.S. Anand & Ms. Vaishnavi Yadav, Advs. Department By Shrimanish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2025

Section 153CSection 269SSection 271D

behalf of the Aseem Doomra and Mr. Narender Kapoor as the case made out by the assessee. In fact that the JCIT imposed penalty under section 271D of the Act of Rs.25 lacks, equivalent to the alleged cash received by the appellant which was further confirmed by the First Appellant ... appears that the AO has not recorded satisfaction that the assessee made contravention to the provision of Section 269SS and, therefore, liable to penalty under section 271D of the Act rather simply informed the Addl. CIT, Central Range-1, Delhi to proceed against the assessee under section 271D

Mahammad Aftab Kattilvalappil, Thalassery vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Kozhikode

ITA 543/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: None
Section 144Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Order, dated 24/01/2022, levying penalty under Section 271D of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : ”1. Misinterpretation of the Term "Otherwise" under ... framing the impugned order renders the same legally untenable. 5. Existence of Reasonable Cause Section 273B The CIT(A) Erred in Confirming the Penalty Under Section 271D Without Considering the Genuine Reasonable Cause. The acceptance of cash was under exceptional and compelling circumstances due to widespread violence and civic disruption

Gurpal Singh Sidhu, Near Govt School vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 9/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Additional CIT(A) but rejected the version on the ground that if it is accepted then assessee appellant will be liable for penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act without appreciating that the provisions of section 269SS of the Act arc not applicable as both of them