Cash sale consideration through a subsisting GPA was not treated as a loan or deposit, so section 271D penalty failed.

Cash received as sale consideration for transfer of immovable property through a subsisting General Power of Attorney was held not to amount to acceptance of a loan or deposit under section 269SS. On that basis, the consequential penalty under section 271D could not be sustained. The reasoning accepted that, despite the revenue's objection to the GPA transaction, the receipt was in connection with a property sale and did not fall within the mischief targeted by the anti-cash transaction provisions. Penalty was therefore deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 271D was leviable where cash sale consideration for transfer of immovable property was received through a subsisting General Power of Attorney and the transaction did not amount to acceptance of loan or deposit under section 269SS.

Analysis: The appeal turned on whether the receipt of cash in connection with sale of immovable property attracted the prohibition in section 269SS and the consequential penalty under section 271D. The transfer was effected through a General Power of Attorney that had not been cancelled, and the reasoning adopted by the lower authorities on the basis of alleged infirmity in the GPA transaction was not accepted. Following the view taken in co-ordinate bench decisions, receipt of sale consideration in cash in the facts of the case was held not to constitute the kind of loan or deposit transaction targeted by section 269SS, and therefore the penal provision could not be invoked.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 271D was not exigible and was deleted; the assessee succeeded.

---