Tribunal rules cash received not unexplained income, penalty deletion upheld

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under section 271D, ruling that the cash received was not unexplained income and could not be penalized under section 269SS. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of recorded satisfaction by the AO for initiating the penalty, citing relevant case law. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the findings in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee by not treating Rs. 75,00,000/- as unexplained income.
2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271D for violation of section 269SS of the IT Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Treatment of Rs. 75,00,000/- as Unexplained Income
The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee received Rs. 75,00,000/- in cash from Shri Balakrishna Goud as an advance for the sale of land. This amount was recovered by police in a theft case and was claimed by the assessee as sale consideration. The AO treated this cash as unexplained income under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act. However, the CIT(A) found that the cash receipt contained all necessary elements of an agreement of sale and was supported by statements from both the assessee and the buyer. The CIT(A) concluded that the source of the cash was explained and thus, section 69A was not applicable.

Issue 2: Deletion of Penalty under Section 271D
The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D for violation of section 269SS, which prohibits accepting certain sums in cash. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, reasoning that once the amount was treated as unexplained income, it could not simultaneously be treated as a specified sum under section 269SS. The CIT(A) relied on precedents from the Delhi High Court (CIT vs. R.P. Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and CIT vs. Standard Brands Ltd.) which state that undisclosed income and specified sums for penalty under section 269SS are mutually exclusive.

Additional Considerations:
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not record satisfaction for initiating penalty under section 271D in the assessment order, which is a prerequisite for such penalties. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Jayalakshmi Rice Mills Ltd. and the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in Srinivasa Reddy Reddeppagari vs. Jt. CIT, the Tribunal held that the absence of recorded satisfaction invalidated the penalty proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under section 271D and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the cash received was not unexplained income and could not be penalized under section 269SS.

---