TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was served on 10/12/2024. The appeal was thus to be filed by 08/02/2025. However, the appeal is being filed on 24.03.2024 hence there is a delay of 44 days in filing the appeal. 2. It is submitted that the assessee did not receive any alert about the passing of Appellate order from the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Hence, the assessee was not aware of the passing of the appellate order. 3. The Assessee received a call from the Jurisdictional assessing officer's office for collection of demand. The assessee informed the assessing officer that the appeal was pending. The assessing officer then informed the assessee that the assessee's appeal was dismissed and also provided a copy of Appellate order wherein the assessee become aware of that the appellate order passed. 4. The assessee immediately notified their Counsel regarding the whole scenario. The Counsel of the assessee then took immediate steps and the assessee is now filing this by filing appropriate condonation petition. 5. It is submitted that considering the above facts and circumstances of the case the assessee humbly prays that the delay in filing of appeal may be condoned considering the ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the course of appellate proceedings." 3. Brief facts of the case are in this case, the assessee had filed the return of income for the A.Y.2011-12 on 29.03.2012 declaring total income of Rs.1,97,760/-. Assessment proceedings were completed u/s 143(3) on 30.03.2014 assessing the total income at Rs. 2,34,660/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Ld. AO that the appellant had received cash totalling Rs. 2,59,42,000/- from 34 parties for brokering land/purchase deal with M/s Pushpanjali Pvt. Ltd in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the IT Act. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271D were initiated and penalty order u/s 271D of the Act was passed by the JCIT, Range-44, Kolkata on 29.09.2014 levying penalty of Rs. 2,59,42,000/-. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the appellant filed the appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order dated 10/12/2024 dismissed the appeal by giving his findings as under: "6. Decision:- I have perused facts of the case, penalty order, submission of the appellant and after considering the same, the appeal is adjudicated as under: 6.1 Ground No. 1 and 2 raised by the appellant are gener....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....presents consideration for sale of right in the land, is also not found correct as the appellant couldn't furnish any evidence to prove that he was having any right in the land for which he received cash as sale of right. Further, no documentary evidence has been filed by the appellant to substantiate his claim that he had received cash from various parties as advance for sale of plots to them. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant has received deposits from the parties in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/- from each of them and he could not submit any evidence to prove that the cash received was not deposit as specified in sec 269SS of the Act and he is just making castles in the air without any basis. Since, it is clear that the appellant had received cash from 34 parties exceeding Rs. 20,000/- from each of them as deposit and has violated provisions of section 269SS of the Act and therefore, I am of the view that Ld. JCIT has rightly levied penalty u/s27D of the Act in the case of the appellant for violation of provisions of sec 269SS of the Act. Accordingly, Grounds No. 3 to 6 are dismissed. 6.4 Ground No. 7 is general in nature and need no adjudication. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of Section 269SS of the Act which has been wrongly invoked in this transaction. Accordingly, the penalty levied is hereby deleted. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed." 6. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decisions in the following other cases: 1. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Kharaiti Lal And Co. 2004 (3) TMI 32- P&H), Order Dated 18.03.2004 2. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Idhayam Publications Limited 2006 (1) TMI 97 (Madras) Order Dated 23-1-2006 3. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4 Surat vs. M/S. Sai Ram Developers (ITAT Ahmedabad Bench), Order Dated 5/4/2013 4. Kanaklata Mallick Vs Jcit, ITAT Cuttack Bench, Order Dated 10/07/2024 7. We have considered the submission made and also gone through the facts of the case. The Ld. AO noted that the assessee had received cash from 34 parties with whom he made agreement to assign all his claim, right, interest in respect of plot of land for a consideration as per the details mentioned in each agreement. Another agreement was made on 01/04/2010 with Mrs Pushpanjali Private Ltd for purchase of more or less 98 Cottahs land lying and situated at Rajarhat ....