TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 892
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the extent it is prejudicial to the appellant. 2. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in levy of penalty u/s 271D of the I.T Act. Without giving proper opportunity. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have observed that the transaction of sale doesn't fall during the previous year relevant for assessment year under consideration as the registration took place on. 20.01.2016 relevant for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) to have considered the facts that the assessee filed the return of income in time admitting the Capital gain 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) ought to have cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee, the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation of the assessee and completed the assessment accepting the returned income of Rs.4,83,310/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 271D of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act for the A.Y 2017-18 on the ground that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. In absence of any explanation from the side of the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is liable to pay penalty as per the provisions of section 271D of the I.T. Act and levied penalty of Rs.10,48,000/- being 100% of the amount of cash received in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. 6. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) NFAC upheld th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntion on the part of the appellant to avoid payment of taxes or to defraud revenue. Thus, it is pleaded that Penalty U/S 271D does not get attracted in the instant case also. Further the appellant relied on the judgement given by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of 'National Surgical Corporation Vs CIT' (2000] [242 ITR 667] [AP] where it was held that penalty U/S 271D is not justified where there is a reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of Sec 269SS. In the instant case also, the appellant is having reasonable belief that once the taxes are duly paid, then it will be in accordance with the law and hence it will not invite the rigors of Sec 271D. In view of the above detailed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loan or deposit or any specified sum otherwise than by account payee cheque or bank draft or ECS through a Bank A/c if the amount of any such loan or deposit or any specified sum or the aggregate of any such loan or dèposit or any specified sum is Rs.20,000/- or more. 5.3.5 As per the provisions of section 271D of the Income Tax Act, if a person takes or accepts any loan or deposit in contravention of the provisions of section 269 SS, he shall be liable to pay by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of loan or deposit so taken or accepted. 5.3.6. Admittedly the appellant has violated the provisions of Sec.269 SS, despite being a quasi-Government officer. With due respect to the case laws relied on by the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his unaccounted money, or if he has made some false entries in his accounts, he should not escape by giving false explanation for the same. Provision inserted to rampant circulation of black money. 5.4. In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED". 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to page 1 to 3 of the paper book drew the attention of the bench to the computation statement and submitted that the assessee has shown LTCG of Rs.10,27,029/- on a/c of sale of property of Plot in Survey No.10 & 11 Anmagal, Hayathnagar, Hayathnagar Mandal R.R. Distt. for a consideration of Rs.10,48,000/-on 20.01.2016. Referring to page 15 to 22 of the paper book, she drew the attention of the Bench to the copy of the sale document No.416/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A) NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the AO in instant case levied penalty of Rs.10,48,000/- u/s 271D of the Act on the ground that the assessee has received Rs.6,15,000/- on different dates from Shri Vilas Ajabrao Narnaware and Shri Anil Ajabrao Narnaware regarding sale of immovable property. However, during the year, there is no sale of property as is discernible from the assessment order and the assessment order refers to the deposit of cash during demonetization period amounting to Rs.10,48,000/- which was accepted by the Assessing....