TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 892
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 considered that the appellant was out of India from 08-06-16 to 05-12 2016 and ought....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment 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 the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: "5.1. The appellant fled written sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 submission, it is pleaded that the penalty levied by the AO of Rs 10,48,000 be deleted, 5.2. The reply of the appellant has duly been considered. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te 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 appellant, it is hereby held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant , for the reason those two orders have been passed by the Hon. High Courts, much before the demonetization Sc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D". 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.416/2016 executed on 20.01.2016 according to which the assessee has received the sale proceeds of Rs.10,48,000/-. She submitted that since no DD number or cheque number or NEFT/RTGS etc., is mentioned, so it is clear that such amount of Rs.10,48,000/- was r....