https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94642 ITAT allowed the appeal of Assessee X and deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271D. The AO had levied penalty on the ground that Assessee X received Rs. 20 lakhs in cash during FY 2008-09, allegedly in contravention of s.269SS by accepting a cash loan or deposit exceeding Rs. 20,000. ITAT accepted the explanation that the amount belonged to Assessee X's father, an agriculturist without a bank account, who had received earnest money from a land transaction and temporarily parked the funds in the assessee's bank account for safety. As the Revenue failed to rebut this explanation and no genuine loan or deposit transaction was proved, ITAT held that penalty u/s 271D was not exigible. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:50:08 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:50:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94642 ITAT allowed the appeal of Assessee X and deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271D. The AO had levied penalty on the ground that Assessee X received Rs. 20 lakhs in cash during FY 2008-09, allegedly in contravention of s.269SS by accepting a cash loan or deposit exceeding Rs. 20,000. ITAT accepted the explanation that the amount belonged to Assessee X's father, an agriculturist without a bank account, who had received earnest money from a land transaction and temporarily parked the funds in the assessee's bank account for safety. As the Revenue failed to rebut this explanation and no genuine loan or deposit transaction was proved, ITAT held that penalty u/s 271D was not exigible. Highlights Income Tax Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:50:08 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94642