TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is an individual, sold immovable property and received sale consideration on his share of Rs..17,52,250/-. Since the assessee has not filed return of income for AY 2018-19, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 14.10.2022 declaring total income of Rs..2,42,850/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices and the details are tabulated in page 2 of the assessment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs..3,02,83,000/- under section 271D of the Act. Against the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied under section 271D of the Act by observing that there is no evidence on record to establish that the assessee had received Rs..3,02,83,000/- by cash in the course sale transaction of immovable property and also not proved that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. DR, by referring to the written submissions, argued that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the paper book. He further drew our attention to the affidavit of the purchaser Mr. Sandeep Jalan placed at pages 55-57 of the paper book and vehemently argued that the signature of the purchaser in the impounded document is fabricated and entirely different from the signature of the purchaser in the registered sale deed dated 22.09.2017 which is exactly matching with the signature in the passport as well as PAN of the purchaser and therefore, cannot be taken cognizance of the fabricated impounded document. The ld. AR vehemently contended by referring to the registered sale deed that the scheduled property was signed by 18 parties, which includes minor & major children and their details are elaborately mentioned in the registered sale dee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ser in the passport and PAN, which are at page No. 57 of paper book, which is totally different. Further, on perusal of the registered sale deed, it is apparently clear that the scheduled properties, which was sold by the assessee and others, are an inherited properties thereby entire minor & major family members were signed in the registered sale deed vide pages 29 to 33 of the paper book, whereas, we find no reference to the property in the unregistered sale agreement. Another contrary fact stated in the sale agreement is that the cheque numbers and the payment dates are hand written and further, there is no date mentioned for alleged cash payment of Rs..50,0000/- placed at page 30 of the paper book, but, however, no such alleged cash con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contended that the assessee has not filed an appeal against the assessment order thereby accepted the findings of the Assessing Officer is not accepted for the reason that the requirement to file an appeal was not warranted as no addition was made to the returned income in the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 25.03.2023. Another contention of the ld. DR that the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer of cash receipt for the difference is reasonable and supported by circumstantial evidence is not acceptable for the reason that no DVO report on the valuation of fair market value of the scheduled property at the impugned value of Rs..3,47,87,500/- was brought on record. We note t....