Penalty under s.271D for accepting cash over Rs.20,000 under s.269SS quashed as transaction made before prohibition

ITAT Nagpur (AT) held that penalty under s.271D for accepting cash above Rs.20,000 under s.269SS was not sustainable. The cash payment of Rs.12 lakh was made on 24/05/2016, prior to the statutory prohibition effective 01/06/2016, and there was no evidence that the transaction was not genuine. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and quashed the penalty; the assessee's grounds were allowed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone a 25-day delay in filing the appeal to admit it for adjudication on merits.

2. Whether penalty under section 271D is sustainable for acceptance of Rs. 12,00,000 in cash in alleged contravention of section 269SS, having regard to the date of the impugned transaction and the statutory prohibition effective date.

3. Whether the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) correctly found contravention of section 269SS on the basis of registered sale deed and accompanying documents, and whether the transaction's genuineness and evidentiary sufficiency were properly assessed.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Condonation of delay in filing appeal (25 days)

Legal framework: Procedural discretion exists to condone delay where sufficient cause is shown; admissions of delayed appeals rest on demonstration of reasonable cause preventing timely filing.

Precedent Treatment: No specific precedent was cited or relied upon in the impugned order or before the Tribunal.

Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee furnished an affidavit-cum-application explaining the cause for delay. The Tribunal examined the affidavit and the surrounding circumstances and concluded the delay was due to reasonable cause preventing timely filing. The Tribunal admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a plausible, sworn explanation for delay is produced and the circumstances satisfy the Tribunal that delay arose from reasonable cause, the Tribunal may exercise discretion to condone the delay and admit the appeal.

Conclusion: Delay of 25 days in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.

Issue 2 - Validity of penalty under section 271D for cash receipt alleged to contravene section 269SS

Legal framework: Section 269SS prohibits acceptance of certain loans/deposits/specified sums otherwise than by an account payee cheque, draft, or prescribed electronic mode; section 271D imposes penalty equal to the amount accepted where contravention of section 269SS is established. Temporal effect of statutory prohibition is material where amendment or effective date restricts cash transactions only from specified date.

Precedent Treatment: The record does not show reliance on or distinction from judicial precedents; the Tribunal's conclusion rests on statutory construction and facts of date of transaction.

Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee sold immovable property and received Rs. 12,00,000 in cash. The transaction was executed on 24/05/2016. The statutory prohibition on acceptance of specified sums in cash took effect from 01/06/2015 (as noted by the Tribunal). Because the payment occurred before 01/06/2015, the statutory bar in force thereafter was not applicable to this particular receipt. The Tribunal also found nothing on record to suggest the transaction was not genuine. On these two bases - (a) temporal non-applicability of the prohibition and (b) absence of evidence of sham transaction - the Tribunal concluded levy of penalty under section 271D was legally unjustified.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an alleged cash acceptance occurs prior to the operative date of statutory prohibition, penalty under section 271D (for contravention of section 269SS) cannot be sustained; additionally, absence of material to impugn the genuineness of the transaction undermines the basis for penalty. Obiter - ancillary remarks regarding the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s treatment of documentary inconsistencies are explanatory but not essential to the holding that penalty is bad in law where prohibition is not yet effective.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 271D equal to Rs. 12,00,000 is quashed because the transaction predated the effective prohibition date and there is no record evidence negating the genuineness of the transaction.

Issue 3 - Sufficiency of evidence and treatment of the registered sale deed and alleged agreement

Legal framework: Assessment of contravention under section 269SS/penalty under section 271D requires examination of documentary evidence (registered sale deed, agreements) and consistency between claimed mode/timing of receipts and recorded terms.

Precedent Treatment: No precedents were invoked to resolve disputes over evidentiary sufficiency; the Tribunal evaluated documentary record and factual chronology.

Interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) had observed that the registered sale deed recorded receipt of Rs. 12 lakh in cash six months prior to registry and found no mention in the deed of the terms of the separate agreement produced by the assessee, treating the agreement as unverified. The Tribunal noted these observations but concluded that, irrespective of documentary discrepancies, the decisive fact was the date of payment (24/05/2016) falling before the effective statutory prohibition date (01/06/2015) and absence of material showing mala fide or sham transaction. Thus, the Tribunal set aside penalty despite CIT(A)'s concerns on documentary verification because those concerns did not supplant the statutory timing analysis and absence of evidence of non-genuineness.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - documentary inconsistencies do not sustain a penalty under section 271D where the statutory prohibition was not yet operative on the date of receipt and there is no material to estabish that the transaction was not genuine. Obiter - critique of the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and its decision to adjudicate merits despite earlier ex-parte disposal are procedural observations not essential to the legal holding on penalty.

Conclusion: The registered sale deed's omission to detail the alleged agreement and schedule of cash receipts does not justify penalty where the receipt predates the prohibition and there is no evidence of sham; accordingly, the penalty was quashed.

---