AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty of Rs. 26,19,39,954/- u/s 271D of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the imposition of penalty u/s 271D for a sum of Rs. 26,19,39,954/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the time limit for passing the order u/s 271D of the Act is to be taken from the date of the proposal for levying penalty u/s 271D submitted by the AO to the JCIT to the date of passing order u/s 271D, which time period is barred by limitation and to quash the penalty order u/s 271D dt. 29.06.2024. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the assessment order I passed on 30.12.2019 u/s 143(3) rws 153A of the Act was set aside by the Hon'ble ITAT Vide order in ITA Nos. 266/Hyd/2021 dt. 10.01.2022, the satisfaction note u/s 271D recorded was not cancelled by the Hon'ble ITAT, and therefore, it cannot be carried to record in the order u/s 254, which thus the order passed u/s 271D on 29.06.2024 is without recordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income Tax Act, dated 24.12.2018 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee trust has filed a return of income declaring a nil income as admitted in the original return of income filed under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, on 30.12.2019, by assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 92,35,26,774/-. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, proposal for penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was sent to the learned JCIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad on 05.09.2019 for violation of provisions of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned JCIT, Central Range - 2, Hyderabad has passed penalty order under Section 271D of the Act, on 23.03.2020 and levied penalty of Rs. 18,73,04,350/- under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, dated 30.12.2019, the assessee society filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee had also filed a simultaneous appeal against the order passed by the learned Addl. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....024 and 24.06.2024 raised objections on limitation in light of provisions of Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, and claimed that, the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271D of the Act, is time-barred. The assessee has also challenged the notice issued by the Addl. CIT under Section 271D for levying penalty for violation of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act, and claimed that, the impugned land sold by the assessee is an agricultural land and the entire sale proceedings of the land has been deposited by the buyers into bank account of the assessee as per the instructions of the banker, because the property was mortgaged to the bank and unless the bank loan is cleared, the property cannot be sold. 7. The learned Addl. CIT, after considering the submissions of the assessee with regard to the limitation for imposing the penalty under Section 271D of the Act, and also after considering the relevant provisions of Section 275(1)(c) and the CBDT Circular No. 10/2016 dated 26.04.2016, observed that, the period of limitation of penalty proceedings under Section 271D and 271E of the Act, is governed by the provisions of Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The limitation period is not de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e went to appeal before Honourable ITAT with ITA No. ITA 192/H/2023 and the same is pending for disposal as on date. * When the case is pending before tribunal and adjudication is not yet completed, recording of satisfaction for the same issue again and levying of penalty by the assessing officer is incorrect. * It amounts to re-examining of the same issue earlier which itself has not attained finality. But however, causing prejudice to the assessee by levying penalty on same issue twice. * Set aside proceedings pending before CIT(A): Further, this is with reference to above cited subject, firstly we would like to submit that against the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254, assessee has filed an appeal before Hon'ble CIT(A) objecting the invocation of penalty and is pending as on date on same issue. When an appeal is pending before Higher forum, new penalty proceedings cannot be invoked. Form 35 is enclosed for your reference. 10.1 The reply of the assessee is perused and found to be not tenable due to the following reasons: 10.1.1 Vide CBDT Circular No.10/2016 [F.NO.279/MISC./M-140/2015-ITJ] dated 26.04.2016, it is clarified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10.1.2 In view of the above, it is clear that period of limitation of penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E of the Act is governed by the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The limitation period is not dependent on the pendency of appeal against the assessment or other order referred to in section 275(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that an appeal is pending before Higher forum, new penalty proceedings cannot be invoked is not tenable." 8. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the order passed by the JCIT imposing penalty under Section 271D of the Act, in light of provisions of Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, and claimed that, the order passed by the Addl. CIT, Central Range -2, Hyderabad is barred by limitation. The assessee has also challenged the penalty levied by the JCIT under Section 271D of the Act, in respect of consideration received for sale of land in cash and also receipt of loans from various persons in cash and claimed that, the land sold by the assessee society is an agricultural land and the same cannot be considered within the meaning of specifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t order in para 7, the A.O. clearly discussed the issue in light of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act, and held that, there is a violation of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act, and the information will be forwarded to the JCIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad for taking necessary action in connection with the above cash receipts against the sale of land violating the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. A similar observation has been made with regard to details of loans received by the assessee in cash and details of repayment of loans in cash. Since the A.O. has forwarded the information to the Range Head during the course of assessment proceedings and the assessment proceedings have been completed on 30.03.2023, the time limit for completion of penalty proceedings should be considered from the end of the month in which proceedings have been initiated and if we consider the said date, the A.O. ought to have completed the penalty proceedings on 30.09.2023. However, the penalty order was passed on 29.06.2024, which is clearly beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, and liable to be quashed. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2024 is well within the limitation provided under the Act. The Ld. CIT-DR further submitted that, although the learned Counsel for the assessee claimed that, it is the date on which the A.O sent a proposal to the Range Head should be considered for the purpose of reckoning the limitation, but the fact remains that as per the circular No.9 of 2016, dated 26/04/2016, the Board has clarified in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 379 ITR 100 (Kerala) that the competent authority for imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Act for violation of section 269SS is the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax and therefore, it is the date on which the authority imposing penalty issued a show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271D of the Act, is relevant for the purpose of computing the limitation for imposing penalty under section 271D of the Act. Therefore, she submitted that, there is no merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee and thus, the ground taken by the assessee should be rejected. 15. The learned CIT-DR for the Revenue further submitted that, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e course of assessment proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254 of the Act, and because, the A.O. has passed the assessment order on 30.03.2023, it is construed that, the A.O. has forwarded the information to the JCIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad on 30.03.2023. Further, based on information received from the A.O., the Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad issued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271D on 09.12.2023 and passed the order under Section 271D of the Act, on 29.06.2024. Therefore, in light of the above facts, it is necessary for us to adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee, challenging the validity of penalty order passed by the Addl. CIT on 29.06.2024 under Section 271D of the Act, in light of Section 275(1)(c) and the limitation provided thereon. 17. The provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act, deals with time limit for passing the penalty orders. As per the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act, no penalty order shall be passed after the expiry of (a) financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of the penalty has been initiated are completed or (b) Six months from the end of the month in which the action for impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the purpose of determining the limitation period for passing the penalty order u/s 271D, six months from the end of March, 2023 should be considered, but not from 09.12.2023 i.e. date on which the authority issued show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271D of the Act. Since the A.O sent reference to Jt. CIT on 30-03-2023, in our considered view, six months period should be considered from 31.03.2023 and if, we consider the starting point from 1/04/2023, then the Addl. CIT ought to have passed the order under section 271D of the Act on 30.09.2023, whereas in the present case, since the A.O has passed the order under section 271D of the Act on 29.06.2024, in our considered view, it is barred by limitation and the same is non-est in the eyes of law. 18. Coming back to the argument of the Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue in light of CBDT Circular No.9 of 2016 dated 26/04/2016 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) that for commencement of limitation for penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, it is the date on which the JCIT issued a show cause notice under section 27....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the reckoning point is 16.11.2016, it is clear that the proceedings were completed beyond the period of limitation, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Assessee. Even otherwise, the concept of delay & latches would crop in; no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the Revenue for the laxity shown in belatedly issuing the show cause notice/proposition notice which they claim, amounted to initiation of penalty proceedings. This view has animated the reasoning of the impugned order of the Tribunal, may be a bit inarticulately. 6.8. The reliance of Panel Counsel for the Revenue on the Coordinate Bench decision in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TAM TAM PEDDA GURUVA REDDY does not come to his aid since the same has been rendered largely fact-specific. The other decision namely GRIHALAKSHMI VISION vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 at para 10 observed as under: 'Question to be considered is whether proceedings for levy of penalty, are initiated with the passing of the order of assessment by the Assessing Officer or whether such proceedings have commenced with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner. From statuto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shall not be operative in the area falling in the jurisdiction of the relevant High Court. However, the CCIT concerned should immediately bring the judgment to the notice of the Central Technical Committee. The CTC shall examine the said judgment on priority to decide as to whether filing of SLP to the Supreme Court will be adequate response for the time being or some legislative amendment is called for." Therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on this Circular. In the above circumstances, the questions of law framed by us have to be answered in favour of the respondent assessee and as a consequence, appeal is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy." 20. The assessee had also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Rishikesh Buildcon (P) Ltd (Supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in light of penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act and the limitation provided u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act, held as under: "12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings in his/her assessment order, the said date is to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar, but, undoubtedly, if we go by the first show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, proposing penalty u/sec.271D of the Act, i.e., on 30.03.2021, the order imposing penalty u/sec.271D of the Act ought to have been passed on or before 30.09.2021, whereas, in the present case, the Assessing Officer passed the order imposing penalty u/sec.271D of the Act on 25.01.2022. Therefore, in our considered view, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is beyond the time limit provided under the provisions of sec.275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus, it is invalid, void abinitio, barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. This legal principle is supported by the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs., Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., (supra) and decision of ITAT, Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. Shri Subramaniam Thanu (supra), wherein it has been clearly held that in terms of sec.275(1)(c) of the Act, it would be the date on which the Assessing Officer wrote a letter to the PCIT recommending to issue show cause notice and if the Competent Authority decide to issue a show cause notice, the limitation would begin to run from the date of letter of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e considered view that the arguments advanced by the learned Sr. AR for the Revenue in light of CBDT's Notification dated 17.09.2021 (supra), does not hold good and, therefore, rejected. 8. In this view of the matter, considering the facts of the case and also by following the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs., Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., (supra) and decision of ITAT, Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. Shri Subramaniam Thanu (supra), we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the learned CIT(A) to quash the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.271D of the Act, dated 25.01.2022. We, accordingly, uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. Consequently, the cross objections raised by the assessee are allowed." 22. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision in the case of Balreddy Gade Vs. ACIT in ITA No.575 to 578/Hyd/2025 dt.28.08.2025. The Co-ordinate Bench, under identical set of facts held as under: 11. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. As far as the alternate s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idence to demonstrate that the assessee had specifically requested for rehearing under section 129 of the Act. The exclusion contemplated in the Explanation (i) to section 275 of the Act applies only when there is such a request. In this regard, we have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CIT vs. S.P. viz Construction Co. (supra), wherein at para no.10 of its order, the Hon'ble High Court has stated as under : "10. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The first point to be considered is as to whether by reason of the proviso to section 129, the ITO was entitled to the benefit of the exclusion of any time which may have been taken by him to give an opportunity to the assessee of being heard in consonance with the principles of natural justice. No doubt, under section 129 noted hereinbefore, an assessee has a right to demand that before the successor-ITO continues any proceeding initiated by his predecessor or any part thereof, he should reopen any part of the proceeding or rehear the assessee before any final order of assessment was passed. In the instant case, there was no such demand from the assessee under section 129. The successo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own in belatedly issuing the show cause notice / proposition notice which they claim, amounted to initiation of penalty proceedings. This view has animated the reasoning of the impugned order of the Tribunal, may be a bit inarticulately. 6.8. The reliance of Panel Counsel for the Revenue on the Coordinate Bench decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tam Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy (2006) 287 ITR 72 (Kar) does not come to his aid since the same has been rendered largely fact-specific. The other decision namely Grihalakshmi Vision v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (2015) 63 taxmann.com 196 (Kerala) observed as under: "Question to be considered is whether proceedings for levy of penalty, are initiated with the passing of the order of assessment by the Assessing Officer or whether such proceedings have commenced with the issuance of the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner. From statutory provision, it is clear that the competent authority to levy penalty being the Joint Commissioner. Therefore, only the Joint Commissioner can initiate proceedings for levy of penalty..." These observations arguably support the view of Revenue, is true. However, we res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f SLP to the Supreme Court will be adequate response for the time being or some legislative amendment is called for." " 15. On perusal of above we found that, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in PCIT vs. K. Umesh Shetty (supra), after considering the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court as well as the CBDT Circular No.09/DV/2016, has held that the reference made by the Ld. AO to the Ld. Addl. CIT is the date of initiation of penalty proceedings for the purpose of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. This decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, being later in time ITA Nos.575 to 578/Hyd/2025 18 (17.01.2025) and after the CBDT circular (supra), deserves to be followed. 16. Further, even assuming there are two possible interpretations, one favouring the Revenue (Hon'ble Kerala High Court) and the other favouring the assessee (Hon'ble Karnataka High Court), the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. [88 ITR 192] is that where two views are reasonably possible, the one favourable to the assessee must be adopted. Therefore, applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court to the present case, we hold that the penalty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... person takes or accepts any loan or deposit or specified sum in contravention of sec.269SS of the Act, he shall be liable to pay by way of penalty a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit or specified sum so taken or accepted". The term "specified sum" has been defined in sec.269SS of the Act, which means, "any sum of money receivable whether as advance or otherwise in relation to transfer of any immovable property whether or not, the transfer takes place". In the present case, the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty u/sec.271D of the Act for accepting cash for sale of immovable property within the meaning of the "specified sum" as defined u/sec.269SS of the Act. It was the argument of the Counsel for the Assessee that, the property sold by the assessee is an agriculture land, situated beyond the limit specified under section 2(14) of the Act and it is not a capital asset and, therefore, it was under the bonafide belief that, accepting cash for sale of agriculture land, does not attract provisions of sec.269SS of the Act and consequently, provisions of sec.271D of the Act, is not attracted. Learned Counsel for the Assessee took us to the Order passed by the Tribunal i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that, levy of penalty is not automatic and it depends upon the explanation of assessee in light of provisions of section 273B of the Act and if explanation of assessee comes under 'reasonable cause', then, the penalty u/sec.271D of the Act, cannot be levied. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, the assessee has satisfactorily demonstrated a 'reasonable cause' for the acceptance of cash consideration for sale of agriculture land. There is no material brought on record by the Revenue to establish any malafide intention or tax evasion. The transaction was part of bonafide sale of agriculture land and squarely falls within the protective ambit of section 273B of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, once the assessee has explained the reasons for accepting cash consideration for sale of agriculture land and the said explanation is bonafide and reasonable, merely for accepting cash for sale of land, the transaction cannot be brought under sec.269SS of the Act, and thus, the rigor of provisions of sec.271D of the Act, cannot be invoked. 26. Coming back to another argument of Counsel for the Assessee. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l asset as defined under section 2(14) of the Act and further, it is exempt from tax, in our considered view, the said transaction cannot be brought within the ambit of provisions of sec.269SS of the Act, for the purpose of sec.271D of the Act. 27. Coming back to case law relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. The Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Rakesh Ganapathy vs., JCIT [2025] 170 taxman.com 239. We have considered the relevant case law relied upon by the Counsel for the Assessee and the facts of the present case and we find that, the case of the assessee squarely covered by the decision of ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Rakesh Ganapathy vs., JCIT (supra). The Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Bangalore on identical set of facts in light of penalty levied u/sec.271D of the Act, has held as under: 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. On going through the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.4.2019, we take a note of the fact that there is no finding of AO regarding any violation of provision of section 269SS of the Act. The order of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was reasonable cause as mandated u/s 273B of the Act for failure to comply with section 269SS of the Act. Hon'ble ITAT therefore, held that the penalty u/s 271D of the Act was not warranted and hence deleted. The relevant paragraph of the Hon'ble ITAT is reproduced below for ease of reference and record: 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, assessee had received cash amounting to Rs. 49,10,000/- towards sale consideration for transfer of her immovable property. It is the contention of the learned AR that receipt of such sale consideration is not covered under the provisions of section 269SS of the Act as the scope of said section is limited to receipt of money in the nature of advance. To adjudicate the issue, we need to examine the relevant provision of section 269SS of the Act, which reads as follows: "269SS. Mode of taking or accepting certain loans, deposits and specified sum. No persons hall take or accept from any other person (herein referred to as the depositor), any loan or deposit or any specified sum, otherwise than by an account payee cheque ........ Explanation. - For the purposes o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hyd.), had accepted the Department's contention that the principle of Ejusdem Generis should be applied to the term "otherwise" in section 40A(8)(c)(iv) of the Act and that it should be interpreted within the context in which it is used. The relevant finding of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal reads as follows: "9. We are not persuaded by the contention of Sri Parthasarathy that the term 'otherwise' occurring in sub-cl. (iv) of cl. (c) of Explanation to sub-s. (8) of s. 40A would cover the chit fund business. The Legislature in its superior wisdom has used the term 'otherwise' in juxtaposition with 'loans' and 'advances'. There is force in the contention of the learned departmental representative that the principle of ejusdem generis should be applied and the term should be interpreted in the context in which it is used. There are several methods of financing in addition to making loans or advances, as for instance, by making deposits for a fixed term, by underwriting or standing as surety or guaranteeing the loan for a fee or a commission. In our view, in the context in which the term 'otherwise' occurs in the said subcl. (iv), i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....69SS and 269T of the Income-tax Act so as to prohibit acceptance or repayment of advance in cash of Rs. 20,000 or more for any transaction in immovable property. It is also proposed to provide a penalty of an equal amount in case of contravention of such provisions. The Memorandum forming part of Finance Bill, 201.5 highlighting the intention of the amendment is captured below: B. MEASURES TO CURB BLACK MONEY Mode of taking or accepting certain loans, deposits and specified sums and mode of repayment of loans or deposits and specified advances The existing provisions contained in section 269SS of the Income-tax Act provide that no person shall take from any person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or online transfer through a bank account, if the amount of such loan or deposit is twenty thousand rupees or more. However, certain exceptions have been provided in the section. Similarly, the existing provisions contained in section 269T of the Income-tax Act provide that any loan or deposit shall not be repaid, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or online trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count payee bank draft or online transfer through a bank account if the amount of such loan or deposit or specified sum is twenty thousand rupees or more. It is also proposed to define "specified sum" as any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise in relation to transfer of an immovable property whether or not the transfer materialises. These amendments will take effect from 1st June, 2015. 12.1 In the present case, the sale consideration was received in cash at the time of execution of multiple sale deeds from different persons for the sale of plots and accepted as genuine in the assessment order completed on 23.05.2018 and admittedly there was no advance received by the seller. The amended provisions of Section 269SS of the Act was applied by the A.O to the facts of the present case only to the sale consideration received as 'specified sum' and on such presumption the JCIT levied penalty u/s 271D of the Act. The intention of the amendment is very clear right from the Budget speech of the Finance Minister that the said amendment is brought into the statute in Section 269SS of the Act would get attracted to sum received in cash as an advance in an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cheque or account payee bank draft or by electronic clearing system through a bank account, if the amount or aggregate amount of loans or deposits or specified advances is twenty thousand rupees or more. The specified advance shall mean any sum of money in the nature of anadvance, by whatever name called, in relation to transfer of an immovable property whether or not the transfer takes place. 54.5 Consequential amendments in section 271D and section 271E, to provide penalty for failure to comply with the amended provisions of section 269SS and 269T, respectively, have also been made. 54.6 Applicability: These amendments have taken effect from 1st day of June, 2015. From the above provisions, Memorandum explaining the intention of amendment by Finance Bill, 2015 including the definition of 'sum specified' brought in the Explanation to Section 269SS of the Act, it is clear that the intention for brining this provision was to curb the generation of black money in real estate prohibiting acceptance or repayment of advance in cash of Rs. 20,000/- or more for any transaction in immovable property. This was explained by Hon'ble Finance Minister while placing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xceptions have been provided in the section. Similarly, the existing provisions contained in section 269T of the Income-tax Act provide that any loan or deposit shall not be repaid, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or online transfer through a bank account, by the persons specified in the section if the amount of loan or deposit is twenty thousand rupees or more. In order to curb generation of black money by way of dealings in cash in immovable property transactions it is proposed to amend section 269SS, of the Income-tax Act so as to provide that no person shall accept from any person any loan or deposit or any sum of money, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer of an immovable property otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by electronic clearing system through a bank account, if the amount of such loan or deposit or such specified sum is twenty thousand rupees or more. It is also proposed to amend section 269T of the Income-tax Act so as to provide that no person shall repay any loan or deposit made with it or any specified advance received by it, otherwise than by an acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act : a. Smt. Vijapurapu Sudha Rao reported in [2023] 157 taxmann.com 669 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) b. Smt. Anuradha Chivukula Challa in IT(IT)A No.585/Bang/ 2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 dt. 14.09.2022 c. Sri Padmanabha Mangalore Chowta in ITA No.1147/Bang/2022 dt. 07.03.2023 d. Narendrakumar Chunilal Soni ITA No. 195/A11d/2022 dt. 17.05.2023 e. Kanchumarthi Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao, Rajahmundry reported in 2022 (9) TMI 53 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM 16. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and judicial pronouncements cited, we hold that on the facts of the instant case, penalty under section 271D of the Act, is not warranted and we delete the same. It is ordered accordingly." 8.1 Respectfully following the above decision of this coordinate bench in the present case also, there was no intention whatsoever to generate unaccounted money/black money as the assessee had recorded the entire receipt of cash in the registered sale deed and duly disclosed the same not only in the return of income but also during the course of assessment proceedings. The ld. AO has also accepted the returned income while passing order u/s 143(3) o....