“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

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

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

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

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 362/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.361/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Madhu Devi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex #27-23-66, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aelpj0707L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.362/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rakesh Kumar Jain V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 27-12-35, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Astps2713B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

with facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC in a summary and casual manner confirmed the penalty under section 271D of the IT Act of Rs.46,54,622/- without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC ought

Madhu Devi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 361/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

Gitanjali Chaitanya Guram, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 269SSection 271D

lakh, which is above ` 20,000, is in contravention of provisions under section 269SS of the Act, and accordingly proceeded to levy penalty under section 271D of the Act. 5. On appeal, before the learned CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed submissions which was considered by the learned

Rajkot District Co.-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The ACIT, Circle-2 (1), Rajkot, Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 183/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 183/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajkot District Co. Op. Milk National Faceless Appeal Vs. Producers Union Ltd., Centre, C/O. Rajkot Dairy, Dudh Sagar Delhi Marg, Rajkot-360003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar3262Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 166/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Rajkot District Co.Op. Milk Tax, Producers Union Ltd., Circle-2(1), C/O. Rajkot Dairy, Dudh Rajkot Sagar Marg, Rajkot-360003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar3262Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

The ACIT, Circle-2 (1), Rajkot, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Rajkot District Co.-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 166/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Nilons Enterprises Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Ward 2(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1600/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 269TSection 271E

electronic clearing system of a bank if the amount involved is in excess of Rs.20,000/-. This imposition of penalty under Section 271D of the Act, was upheld by a common order dated 31st December, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). On further appeal, the impugned order ... dated 27th June, 2014 of the Tribunal, inter alia held that penalty under Section 271D of the Act is not imposable in view of Section 273B of the Act. This for the reason that there was a reasonable cause for the failure to comply with Section 269SS

Narender Goud Tigulla, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Mohd.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Kumaran, DR

Section 153ASection 269SSection 271D

Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on the ground that recording of satisfaction is a prerequisite condition for initiation of penalty under section 271D of the Act, but in this case no such satisfaction was recorded prior to the initiation of the penalty proceedings nor passing the penalty ... which he had accepted cash to the tune of Rs.87,80,000.00 which was in violation of Section 269SS of the Act, attracting penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 17. Before we advert to the reply submitted by the petitioner, we may mention that under Section 269SS

Sri Sankaranarayanan Krishnamoorthy, Chennai vs. ITO-1(2) International Taxation, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R. Viswanathan, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 269SSection 271D

officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. Therefore, respondent No. 1 imposed the penalty under Section 271D of the Act. Mr. Sankaranarayanan Krishnamoorthy :: 7 :: 25. We are afraid respondent No. I had completely overlooked the decision of the Supreme Court

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Non-Corporate Circle vs. Akmg Alloys Private Ltd., Dindigul

In the result, Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and

ITA 873/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement –

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. Therefore, respondent No. 1 imposed the penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 25. We are afraid respondent No. I had completely overlooked the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice

M/S. Shri Shi vs. Hakthi Foundations Pvt. Ltd., Chennaivs.Addl.CIT, Central Range-3, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1749/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. R. Viswanathan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. N. Balakrishnan, CIT

Section 153CSection 269SSection 27Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. Therefore, respondent No. 1 imposed the penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 25. We are afraid respondent No. I had completely overlooked the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice

Prasad Dipakrao Belorkar, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-1, Yavvatmal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar TitarmareFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(1)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

respect. 2) The authorities below erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law in levying and confirming a penalty under section 271D when no 2 Prasad Dipakrao Belorkar assessment proceeding was completed and there is no proper initiation of penalty proceedings. Just and proper relief ... respect. 3) The authorities below erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law in levying and confirming a penalty under section 271D when the purchaser deposited the cash in the bank account of the assessee as there was a technical server problem in the bank

Rakesh Ganapathy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

ITA 887/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

raised following additional grounds of appeal: ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. Grounds on legal issues: a. The notice issued for initiation of penalty under section 271D of the Act is barred by limitation, on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The order passed under section 271D ... quashed on the facts and circumstances of the case. c. The show cause notice dt:30.06.2022 does not specify the limb for which penalty under section 271D is initiated and hence, is an invalid notice on the facts and circumstances of the case. d. The authorities below have failed

Vidya Pramod Patil, Khamgaon vs. JCIT, Akola

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 287/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

Pramod Patil 3. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding action of learned AO in levying penalty under section 271D of Rs.8,50,000/- for alleged violation of section 269SS of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned ... lakh, which is above ` 20,000, which is in contravention of provisions under section 269SS of the Act, and accordingly proceeded to levy penalty under section 271D of the Act. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. We have given

Dhanwanta Abhiman Athawale, Amravati vs. JCIT Amravati Range, Amravati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 84/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 156Section 250Section 269Section 271Section 271D

received in cash. This fact is neither disputed by the Assessing Officer nor by the learned CIT(A). The Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on the ground that the assessee has received cash as a consideration in lieu ... 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

P.K Yoosuf, Thrissur vs. The JCIT Range 2, Thrissur

ITA 429/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year - 2017-2018 Shri P.K. Yoosuf, Thrissur – 680 703 Pan Afipy1654F C/O. M/S. Arikkat Vijayan Joint Commissioner Of Menon Associates, Vs. Income Tax, Range-2, Advocates, “Pratibha” Thrissur. North Railway Station Road, Ernakulam, Kochi-18. Kerala. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Krishna K. Advocate Revenue By : Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 Order Per Bench : This Assessee’S Appeal, For The Assessment Year 2017-2018, Arise Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A)- Nfac Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1044931801(1) Dated 25.08.2022, In Proceedings U/S.271D Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR

Section 269SSection 271D

filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. During the course of argument, assessee had raised several legal grounds such as (i) Order of penalty under section 271D of the Act is time barred (ii) there is no recording of satisfaction in the Assessment Order for initiation of penalty under section ... legal grounds and is only pressing the issue on merits as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Act. Moreover, we find that there are no corresponding grounds in the memorandum of appeal for raising the aforesaid legal issues

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

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 ... with the power to impose penalty has a discretionary power. In view of the above observations, I am of the opinion that no penalty under section 271D of the Act can be validly levied in this case. Accordingly, I cancel the impugned penalty. 2.18 Moreover, the genuinity of the transaction

Vimal Todi, Indore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 190/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 269SSection 271D

Section 275 provides the limitation for imposition of penalty under Chapter-XXI of the IT Act. Since in the case in hand, the penalty under section 271D is not imposed pursuant to any assessment-order, therefore, clause (c) of section 275(1) is relevant for the purpose of limitation ... further made a reference to the Additional CIT for levy of penalty. Thus the limitation for passing the order for levy of penalty under section 271D would reckon from the end of the October, 2015 and shall expire on 30th April, 2016 being the period of 6 months from

Vimal Todi, Indore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 189/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 269SSection 271D

Bhagawan Sri Balasaibaba Central Trust, Kurnool vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 618/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhagawan Sri Balasaibaba Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Central Trust, Sri Nilayam Fort, Tirupati. Andhra Pradesh. Kurnool. Pan : Aaatb3818R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Pawan kumar Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271D

Appellant’s case. 2. The Appellant denies himself liable to be levied an amount being Rs. 6,37,00,000/-, as penalty under section 271D of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in levying a penalty ... which he had accepted cash to the tune of Rs.87,80,000.00 which was in violation of Section 269SS of the Act, attracting penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 17. Before we advert to the reply submitted by the petitioner, we may mention that under Section 269SS

Smt. Devikaben Shailesh Chokshi L/H of Late Shailesh Ramanlal Chokshi, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 951/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

JCIT's stance that this arrangement breached the legal requirements of Section 269SS. Therefore, the JCIT concluded that the circumstances warranted a penalty under Section 271D, and held that the appellant's acceptance of the gold loan without a reasonable cause constituted a violation of the provisions outlined in section ... inconsistency highlights a significant violation of Section 269SS of the Act, which explicitly excludes precious metals as acceptable forms of loan acceptance. The penalty under Section 271D was levied due to this clear contravention. Despite the assessee's claims regarding the initial stage of his business and the need