TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all the four appeals, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this single consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee firm has raised common grounds of appeal in all the assessment years. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed for the A.Y. 2020-21 in ITA No.1021/Hyd/2026 are re-produced as under: "1. The order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous in law as well as facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the penalty order as the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271DA is invalid in the absence of the specific violations in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 269ST. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s. 271DA of the IT Act by the Ld.AO without appreciating the actual facts involved in the case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the penalty levied u/s. 271DA, as there is no proper satisfaction drawn by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld.AO has not drawn proper satisfaction in the Assessment order as to what is the quantum of amount for which the Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty cannot be levied automatically on mere admission of additional income offered voluntarily on estimation basis and the same is not permissible as per law. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the judicial precedents and settled legal position that penalty under section 271DA cannot be imposed in absence of cogent and corroborative evidence. 16. The Appellant craves to add/alter/modify/leave any other grounds at the time of hearing." 3. The brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Vasavi Group on 17.08.2022 covering various business premises, residential premises of directors, partners and other connected persons and entities of the Group. During the course of search proceedings, the Investigation Wing found and seized various incriminating materials in physical as well as electronic form including loose sheets, original MOUs, vouchers and tally data maintained in hard disks and pen drives. The electronic devices seized during the course of search were inventorised as Annexure A/VG/MS/51 and Annexure A/VG/CORP/ED/3. The Revenue also referred to cert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies in the seized documents for the entire group. The A.O. further noted that, going by the modus operandi employed by the assessee, coupled with the documents found during the course of search, it is undisputedly proved that, the assessee was involved in receipt of on-money in cash from various customers for sale of flats and commercial space, and the same has not been recorded in the regular books of account maintained by the assessee. The A.O. has analyzed the seized material with reference to amount quantified by the assessee and observed that, the assessee has recorded on-money receipts for sale of flats and commercial space under two categories, one under the head "on-money receipts directly from customers" and further, "on-money receipts routed through partners under the head partner's contribution". Therefore, the A.O. observed that, the books of accounts maintained by the assessee in the normal course of its business are not true and correct, because it did not contain total receipts from the business. The A.O. further noted that, the secondary set of books maintained by the assessee in the tally data are also defective on broad issues, including payables to landlords ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the admission of the assessee is not acceptance of violation of provisions of Section 269ST of the Act. 6. The Addl. CIT, Central Range - 3, Hyderabad, after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the provisions of Section 269ST of the Act, observed that on perusal of the seized documents including the accounting data maintained in tally seized, it is clear that, the assessee has received a sum of Rs. Rs. 47,92,33,989/- in cash on various occasions, thereby the assessee had violated the provisions of Section 269ST of the Act. The Addl. CIT further noted that, the accounting data which was maintained date-wise and transaction-wise clearly shows cash receipts of Rs. 47,92,33,989/- on various occasions. Further, upon verification of relevant cash receipts, it was observed that, the actual cash receipts in violation of provisions of Section 269ST of the Act, is only Rs. 15,00,000/-. Therefore, observed that, the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 269ST of the Act by accepting an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- or more in aggregate from a person in a day, in respect of a single transaction; or in respect of transactions relating to one event or o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....middle man or broker. The assessee is just a facilitator between the seller and the purchaser. However, the facts of this case is totally distinguishable from that of this instant case wherein the assessee has received the cash directly from the prospective buyers i.e. customers. 9. The assessee has relied upon certain case laws with regard to the principle of law that for applicability of penal provisions under a particular section, the conditions stated therein must exist. In this regard, the section s.269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby reproduced as under, Mode of undertaking transactions. 269ST. No person shall receive an amount of two lakh rupees or more- (a) in aggregate from a person in a day, or (b) in respect of a single transaction: or (c) in respect of transactions relating to one event or occasion from a person, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed 10. In the instant case of the assessee, on perusal of the seized documents including the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....generated for this amount which is enclosed." 7. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of initiation of penalty proceedings as well as levy of penalty on merits. The assessee submitted that, the A.O. did not record proper satisfaction in the assessment order regarding alleged contravention of provisions of section 269ST of the Act. The assessee further submitted that, the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271DA of the Act, was vague and did not specify the precise nature of violation alleged against the assessee. The assessee further submitted that, the entire penalty proceedings were initiated only on the basis of loose sheets, rough tally data and uncorroborated electronic entries without any independent evidence to establish actual receipt of cash from identifiable persons. The assessee also submitted that, the Revenue did not establish identity of payer, nature of transaction, date of receipt and actual mode of receipt so as to attract provisions of section 269ST of the Act. The assessee further submitted that, mere admission of additional income or estimation of profit dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 10. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the penalty order, seized material, statements recorded during the course of search proceedings and written submissions filed by the assessee, observed that, the search operation resulted in seizure of incriminating electronic evidence and parallel tally books clearly reflecting cash transactions outside the regular books of account. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, the statements recorded from various persons connected with Vasavi Group explained the procedure followed for collection of cash from customers and maintenance of parallel tally books. The Ld. CIT(A) also observed that, the electronic evidence seized during the course of search proceedings was supported by certificates issued u/s. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore, the evidentiary value of such material cannot be ignored merely because the entries were maintained in electronic form. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, the tally entries were maintained date-wise and transaction-wise and therefore the seized material clearly established receipt of cash in violation of provisions of section 269ST of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also observed that, during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported the case of the Revenue regarding receipt of cash from customers and maintenance of parallel tally books outside the regular books of account. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, the assessee failed to disprove the seized material with supporting evidence and also failed to establish that the tally entries did not represent actual cash transactions. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, the assessee received cash in excess of the prescribed limits otherwise than through banking channels and therefore violated provisions of section 269ST of the Act, attracting levy of penalty u/s. 271DA of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the Addl. CIT for the A.Y. 2020-21. 13. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri C. Maheswar Reddy, C.A., Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A. and Shri S. Narsing Rao, C.A., submitted that, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining penalty levied by the Addl. CIT/A.O. und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cernible as to whether the A.O. has arrived at a clear satisfaction as regards violation of provisions of section 269ST of the Act. Therefore, without any satisfaction in the assessment order, initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271DA of the Act, is totally incorrect. The learned counsel for the assessee, further referring to the assessment order passed by the A.O., submitted that although the A.O. has discussed the modus operandi employed by the assessee group on receipt of on-money for sale of flats and commercial spaces and also quantified the aggregate amount received by the assessee firm for the year under consideration, but the A.O. has not given any details of the persons, who paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- or more in aggregate from a person in a day; or in respect of a single transaction; or in respect of transactions relating to one event or occasion from a person, which is evident from the assessment order passed by the A.O. where the A.O. only tabulated the year-wise on-money receipts for sale of flats and commercial spaces without any details as to the name of the customer who paid the money, date of such payment, whether it is in cash or otherwise than ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pted. In this regard, they relied upon the following judicial precedents: 1. Commissioner of Income-tax-V Vs. Rampur Engg. Co. Ltd. reported in (2009) 176 Taxman 211 (Delhi) (FB). 2. Shri Umakant Sharma Vs. JCIT in ITA Nos. 364 to 366/Ind/2022 (Indore - Trib.). 3. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Grandhi Sri Venkata Amarendra reported in (2026) 183 taxmann.com 545 (SC). 4. Grandhi Sri Venkata Amarendra Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax. 5. Srinivasa Reddy Reddeppagari Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in W.P. No. 44285 of 2022 (Telangana). 6. Bhowmick Raj Singh Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2025) 171 taxmann.com 575 (Raipur - Trib.). 7. Kesireddy Ravinder Reddy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) in ITA Nos. 1617 & 1722/Hyd/2025 (Hyderabad - Trib.). 8. Somireddy Sudhakar Reddy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1) in ITA No. 1505/Hyd/2025 (Hyderabad - Trib.). 9. ACIT, Central Circle-30 Vs. Seven Seas Hospitality Private Ltd. in ITA Nos. 2225 & 2226/Del/2025 (Delhi - Trib.). 17. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the penalty levied by the Addl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ooks of account are rejected and the profit has been estimated by applying a certain rate of profit, then the very same books of account cannot be considered for the purpose of levying penalty under section 271DA of the Act. Since the documents maintained by the assessee are incomplete and the evidences considered by the Addl. CIT for the purpose of levying penalty under section 271DA of the Act, are non-speaking ones without any details as to the name of the person from whom the cash was received, date of cash receipt and the purpose, the data relied upon by the A.O. for the purpose of section 271DA of the Act, is totally incorrect and therefore, the penalty levied by the Addl. CIT on the basis of the said evidence cannot be upheld. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, apart from the rough and unauthenticated tally data, neither the investigation nor the A.O. has brought on record any corroborative evidence to prove the violation of provisions of section 269ST of the Act. In the absence of any cogent evidence, levy of penalty on the basis of rejected books of accounts and only on the basis of admission of additional income during the search is a clear case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....occasion otherwise than by way of an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed is totally based on suspicion and surmises and not based on any evidence. Therefore, they submitted that, in the absence of any independent inquiry to support the claim of the A.O. that, the assessee has received cash in excess of Rs. 2,00,000/- or more contrary to the provisions of section 269ST of the Act, levy of penalty on the basis of unilateral entries passed by the assessee in the books of account which are rejected and not considered for the purpose of assessment cannot be accepted. In this regard, they relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sait Bansilal & Rangisetti Veeranna Vs. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 750 (Andhra Pradesh), The assessee has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC). The assessee had also relied on the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2026) 185 taxmann.com 655. (Hydera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndatory. As per section 271DA of the Act, no penalty shall be imposed on a person, if he, proves that there were good and sufficient reasons for the contravention. Penalty proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature and therefore, the burden lies on the Revenue to establish that the assessee acted with guilty mind or deliberate defiance of law and in the present case, no such findings have been made by the A.O. Further, the primary objective of section 271DA of the Act, is to curb black money and tax evasion. In the present case, there is no iota of evidence in the assessment order or in the penalty order that the assessee has evaded tax by employing modus operandi in receipt of on-money. Therefore, levying penalty under Section 271DA of the Act, equal to the amount of cash receipts in excess of Rs. 2,00,000/- is contrary to the purpose of insertion of section 271DA by the legislation into the statute book going by the provisions of Section 271DA and the purpose of its insertion. The learned counsel for the assessee further, referring to the provisions of Section 158BFA(2) of the Act, which is applicable to cases where search has been initiated on or after 01.04.2024, submitted that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T of the Act, either in the assessment order or the penalty order, which is evident from the relevant orders passed by the A.O. where the A.O. referred to receipts in excess of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the whole year without any details as to the name of the person who paid the amount, date of payment, purpose of payment, etc. The learned CIT(A) also admitted the fact that there are no such facts coming from the assessment order or in the penalty order, but erred in obtaining a report from the A.O. on the list of transactions in excess of Rs. 2,00,000/- or more in aggregate from a person in a day; or in respect of a single transaction; or in respect of transactions relating to one event or occasion without providing any opportunity to the assessee. Further, even assuming for a moment that the learned CIT(A) was right in obtaining a report from the A.O. regarding violation of section 269ST of the Act, but fact remains that even in the list submitted by the A.O., there are no clear details as to the name of the person who paid the amount, date of payment and the purpose of payment, etc. The learned counsel for the assessee, referring to the list of transactions reproduced by the learned CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee group in receipt of on-money for sale of flats and commercial spaces and also quantified year-wise receipts recorded in tally data under different heads, including the amount received by the partners and routed through the capital account. The assessee has not reconciled the entries contained in the seized data with the books of account and also failed to explain the transactions to the satisfaction of the A.O. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee that there is no satisfaction from the A.O. before initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271DA of the Act, is totally incorrect going by the provisions of section 271DA and the purpose of its insertion. The learned CIT-DR further submitted that, once there is a finding from the A.O. regarding violation of Section 269ST of the Act, then it is sufficient compliance of satisfaction as required under law and also as held by various Courts, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). Further, there is no mandate in law to record satisfaction in a particular manner. Once there is an observation from the A.O. regarding violation of pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the course of appellate proceedings, the A.O. has submitted a report along with the list of payments which are in excess of the specified sum as per section 269ST of the Act and the same has been considered by the learned CIT(A) and observed that the assessee has received cash in excess of Rs. 2,00,000/- or more which falls under the provisions of section 269ST of the Act. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that the A.O. has not discharged the burden is incorrect. 26. The learned CIT-DR further submitted that, the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee that once the books of account are rejected and the profit has been estimated, then there is no scope for levying penalty under section 271DA of the Act, is also devoid of merit going by the provisions of section 271DA and the purpose of its insertion. Further, there is no relation between assessment of income on undisclosed cash receipts and levy of penalty under section 271DA of the Act. The A.O. determined the income on the basis of estimation going by the facts of the case, the evidence available with the A.O. and the explanation of the assessee. However, when it comes to penalty under section 271DA of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the assessee in tally data is also not reliable going by the entries contained therein and therefore, merely because the profit is estimated, it cannot be said that penalty under section 271DA of the Act, is not leviable. The learned CIT-DR further submitted that, the arguments of the assessee in light of provisions of Section 158BFA(2) is also devoid of merit going by the said provisions. The provisions relating to Section 158BFA(2) were made applicable by the Finance Act, 2024 in cases where the search was conducted on or after 01.04.2024, the income of the block period is computed and tax is levied at 60% and therefore, considering the rate of tax levied on undisclosed income, immunity has been provided for levying of penalty for various violations including violation under Section 269ST of the Act. Therefore, the comparison of provisions of Section 271DA with Section 158BFA(2) is totally incorrect and cannot be accepted. The learned CIT-DR further submitted that, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the assessee in the case of Shri Mohanlal Vs. JCIT in ITA No.221/JPR/2019 dated 06.09.2021 is distinguishable on facts, because in the above case there was no evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Central Range - 3, Hyderabad issued show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271DA and after considering submissions of the assessee levied penalty u/s 271DA of the Act, for Rs. 15,00,000/- for violation of provisions of section 269ST of the Act. Therefore, it is necessary for us to decide the issue in light of above facts, and arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee and, as well as the Ld. CIT-DR/Sr.AR for the revenue. 29. The assessee has agitated penalty levied by the A.O. on multiple grounds. The first and foremost ground raised by the assessee is validity of order passed by the Addl.CIT/A.O. u/s 271DA of the Act, in absence of proper satisfaction from the assessing officer during assessment proceedings. The counsel for the assessee argued that, in the absence of proper satisfaction, initiation of penalty u/s 271DA makes the entire penalty proceedings a nullity and void-ab-initio. The primary issue for consideration is whether penalty under section 271DA of the Act, can be sustained where the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction in the assessment order regarding violation of section 269ST of the Act. Section 271DA of the Act, provides for penalty where a person....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty proceedings u/s 271DA of the Act, for violation of section 269ST of the Act, but said observation does not satisfy the requirement of law. The law is very clear in as much as, there shall be a clear and unambiguous findings from the A.O., in the assessment order regarding receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- or more, from a person, in aggregate in a single day, in respect of a single transaction; or in respect of transactions relating to one event or occasion from a person, otherwise than by way of account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or electronic mode of payment through a bank account. The A.O. neither records any findings with reference to receipt in excess of Rs. 2,00,000/- or more from any person in a single day; or in respect of a single transaction; or in respect transactions relating to one event or occasion nor made out a case for invoking section 269ST of the Act. Although the A.O. discussed the issue of on-money received by the Vasavi Group, including the assessee in light of modus operandi employed by the group and observed that there is clear evidence for receipt of on-money, but there is no iota of discussion on violation of section 269ST of the Act. No doubt, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 271DA derives jurisdiction only when the assessment proceedings disclose prima facie satisfaction regarding violation of section 269ST. In absence of such satisfaction, the entire penalty proceedings is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 31. In the present case, the assessment order is completely silent regarding alleged contravention of section 269ST. The foundational jurisdictional requirement for initiation of penalty under section 271DA is absent and therefore, the impugned penalty order deserves to be quashed. The A.O. merely stated that penalty proceedings u/s 271DA are being referred to where violation of section 269ST is found without recording satisfaction that conditions for invoking section 271DA are satisfied. The Addl.CIT independently initiated penalty without assessment findings regarding violation of section 269ST of the Act. In the present case, on perusal of the assessment order, we find that, the A.O. has not recorded any clear, specific or conscious satisfaction that, the assessee had received any amount in violation of section 269ST of the Act. The assessment order neither identifies the particular transaction alleged to be contravention of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rson, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account. Therefore, he submitted that, in absence of any findings as to violation of section 269ST of the Act, levying penalty u/s 271DA on the basis of unilateral entries recorded by the assessee and admission during search is totally incorrect and contrary to section 271DA of the Act. Therefore, it is necessary for us to examine the issue in light of above facts and the provisions of Section 269ST and 271DA of the Act. For better understanding Section 269ST of the Act, is reproduced which reads as under:- "Mode of undertaking transactions Section 269ST. No person shall receive an amount of two lakh rupees or more- (a) in aggregate from a person in a day; or (b) in respect of a single transaction; or (c) in respect of transactions relating to one event or occasion from a person, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed: Provided that the provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be levied only when there is a clear and demonstrable violation of section 269ST. The statutory provision itself proceeds on the existence of an actual receipt in a prohibited mode. In the present case, the penalty has been imposed merely on the basis of the alleged admission of the assessee. The Revenue has not brought on record any independent evidence to establish the name of the person from whom cash was received; the date of receipt; the exact amount received from each person; whether such receipt was in respect of a single transaction; whether it related to one event or occasion; and whether the threshold under section 269ST was crossed in the manner contemplated by law. In absence of these foundational facts, the charge of violation of section 269ST remains vague and unproved. Further, in order to invoke section 269ST of the Act, there should be two parties i.e., one is payer and another is payee and there must be identifiable transaction and the transaction should be a single transaction and finally the transactions relate to one event or occasion. In the present case, although the A.O. has tabulated total cash receipts in a financial year in respect of sale of flats and co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her, even assuming there was some technical breach, section 271DA(1) of the Act, contains a proviso that no penalty shall be imposed where the assessee proves good and sufficient reasons for the contravention. The existence of such proviso shows that the provision is not intended to operate mechanically in every case. In the facts of the present case, there is no clear evidence of violation of section 269ST. The penalty has been levied only on the basis of an uncorroborated admission, without independent verification or supporting material. Therefore, the penalty cannot be sustained. Penalty proceedings being quasi-criminal require strict proof. Section 269ST of the Act, is aimed at curbing black money and unaccounted transactions and not penalising every unverified allegation. In absence of clear evidence i.e., receipts, books, confirmations, or transaction-wise evidence, penalty cannot survive merely on statement/admission. 36. In the present case, the facts of the case themselves demonstrate that penalty under section 271DA is wholly unsustainable. The A.O. has admittedly rejected the books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Act, on the ground that, the books were incomp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the alleged admission relied upon by the Department cannot override the absence of independent evidence. An admission cannot substitute statutory proof, especially in penal proceedings. The Department is still required to establish the exact nature and ingredients of violation contemplated under section 269ST of the Act. The Tribunal in several cases has consistently held that where income is estimated after rejection of books, penalty proceedings cannot survive mechanically unless supported by cogent incriminating evidence. The rationale behind this principle squarely applies to proceedings under Section 271DA also. Moreover, once income is estimated, individual entries in the rejected books lose independent evidentiary sanctity unless separately corroborated. The Department cannot adopt inconsistent stands by rejecting books for assessment purposes and simultaneously treating isolated entries or alleged statements as conclusive proof for penalty purposes. Such contradictory action is legally impermissible in absence of independent corroborative evidence. The very fact that the A.O. resorted to estimation demonstrates absence of certainty regarding actual receipts and transaction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erstood that in order to levy penalty, the A.O. has to gather the evidence from the seized material. In the present case, the seized material is wholly non-speaking and dumb with regard to the transaction-wise and buyer-wise details of the sales of flats and commercial space. There is no material whatsoever to reach any conclusion regarding contravention of the provisions of section 269ST. Consequently, the penalty under section 271DA of the Act, cannot be levied. We, also refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons (supra), where it was held that "Penalty proceedings being penal in character, the department must establish that the receipt of the amount in dispute constitutes income of the assessee. Apart from the falsity of the explanation given by the Assessee, the department must have before it, before levying penalty cogent material or evidence from which it could be inferred that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of the same and that the disputed amount is a revenue receipt. No doubt, the original assessment proceedings for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings, a finding in an assessment proceedings that a particular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted, though a finding in the assessment proceedings constitute good evidence in the penalty proceedings." In the present case, since the allegation of violation of section 269ST of the Act, has been made by the A.O., the onus lies on the Revenue to establish the said alleged violation by the assessee. However, as noted in earlier part of this order, from the material considered by the A.O. for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 271DA of the Act, no such evidence is forthcoming from the seized material and no evidence to the said fact has been brought on record by the A.O. Although the Ld. Addl.CIT observed that, it is for the assessee to discharge the burden by furnishing the relevant evidence and prove that the cash received towards the sale of flats and commercial space is less than the amount specified under section 269ST of the Act, and the assessee has not discharged the burden, but in our considered view, once the A.O. makes the allegation that the assessee had violated the provision of section 269ST of the Act, then it is for the A.O to prove the allegation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f residential flats and commercial units. The A.O. considered unilateral entries made by the assessee group from rejected books of account and therefore, in our considered view the A.O. had followed selective approach where he had rejected books of accounts on ground that, they are incomplete and estimated income, whereas when it comes to penalty u/s 271DA, he had considered very same incomplete and incorrect books. Therefore, in our considered view, the A.O has not conclusively proved the violation of provisions of section 269ST of the Act, so as to levy penalty under section 271DA of the Act, and thus, in our considered view, penalty levied by the A.O. is not sustainable on merits on the facts of this case and in law. 40. Coming back to one more argument of the learned counsel for the assessee in light of provisions of Section 115BFA(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee referring to newly inserted section 115BFA(2) by the Finance Act, 2024, which is applicable for searches conducted on or after 01.04.2024 submitted that, as per section 115BFA(2), if income is admitted and tax is paid, then immunity is provided under section 271D, 271DA, 271E and 271AAD of the Ac....