TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1765
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised by the assessee read as under : "1 The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts of the case and in law involved in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) without taking into consideration the information filed before him proceeded to complete the appeal u/s. 250 of the IT Act and the same is not sustainable. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ignored the explanations given by the assessee and concluded that the assessee violated the provisions of 269SS of the IT Act and proceeded to levy penalty u/s.271D of the IT Act and such provision has no basis and therefore the same is liable to be deleted. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trict, in contravention to the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. Thereafter, the explanation given by the assessee was not satisfactory to the Assessing Officer and hence, he passed order u/s 271D of the Act on 29.02.2020 imposing penalty of Rs.14,73,960/- for AY 2017-18. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the penalty order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed appeal and thereafter, it was migrated to the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, ld. AR has drawn our attention to Para 4.0 to 6.0 of the penalty order and also Para 5.2 to 5.333 of the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR had submitted that no pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r that purposes, the ld. DR has drawn our attention to page 30 of the paper book, wherein the sale consideration was received by post paid cheques duly payable on 11.07.2016, 16.07.2016, 21.07.2016, 06.07.2016, 16.07.2016, 06.07.2016, and 16.07.2016 and the cash payment was received on the date of sale deed dt.18.04.2016. It was submitted by the ld. DR that once the major portion of the consideration i.e., 2.60 crores were received through the post paid cheques, then there was no requirement or necessity to accept the amount in cash by the assessee. 7.1 In support of his case, Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions : a) Decision in the case of Vasan Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in (2021) 125 taxmann.com 266 (SC). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payment was not disputed by the assessee before us, who is the GPA Holder. However, it was sought to be argued by the ld. AR that that no penalty can be imposed upon the assessee, as he was merely a GPA Holder. 9.1. First of all, we have to find out whether the assessee was merely a GPA Holder or was having any rights thereon. Page 26 of the paper book clearly shows that the assessee along with two others were the agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney Holders, as per the General Power of Attorney Deed Document No. 5632/2004/Bk/1 dt.22.04.2004 and that there was existing an agreement of sale along with GPA in favour of the assessee and two others. The ld.AR was directed by this Bench on the date of hearing to produce the said d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee can be held liable for violation of provisions of section 269SS r.w.s. 271D of the Act or not ? For that purposes, what is required for us, is the assessee should receive the specified sum by way of cash, while entering into the transaction of sale of immovable property. In the present case, undoubtedly, the appellant has received specified sum in cash and therefore, there was a violation of provisions of section 269SS r.w.s. 271D of the Act. The reliance by the assessee on the decision of Agra Tribunal in the case of Chet Ram Verma Vs. ITO (supra) is of no help to the assessee as in the said case, the Tribunal was not concerned with the imposition of penalty rather the Tribunal was only concerned with reopening of the assessment pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has neither disputed the receipt of cash towards the sale of property nor has disputed that he has not received the amount. Thus, the requirements of section 271D are fulfilled as the assessee has received an amount i.e., more than Rs. 20,000/- by way cash in violation of section 269SS of the Act. 12. Furthermore, the last contention raised by the ld. AR before us is that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly enhanced the penalty and thereafter, issued show cause notice to the assessee. Perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A) from Para 5.1 to 5.3.3 makes it abundantly clear that the notice has been given for enhancement vide order dt.29.02.2020 whereby the ld. CIT(A) sought to enhance from Rs. 14,73,960/- to Rs. 21,34,375/-. Therefore, this contention ....