TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt had received the sale consideration in cash from bonafide parties (viz. agriculturists, NRIs) having genuine sources of income and without any intention to avoid tax or generate black money. 3. The Learned. JCIT failed to appreciate that the impugned cash transactions were duly disclosed, genuine, and duly recorded in the registered sale deeds and accepted by the Sub-Registrar, thereby demonstrating transparency and absence of any tax evasion or black money generation. 4. The penalty levied u/s 271D is bad in law in view of the binding CBDT Circular No. 19/2015 dated 27.11.2015, titled explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance Act 2015 in which this amendment was explained with the preamble. In order to curb generation of black money in cash in immovable transactions which clarifies that the object of introducing the amendment to section 269SS was to curb black money in immovable property transactions, and not to penalize bonafide or genuine transactions like the present one. 5. That both the AO and the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to consider the evidences, affidavits, and submission on record establishing that the purchasers had adequate genuine sourc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee and confirmed the penalty order imposed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has failed to establish that there were good and sufficient reasons for the contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 5. the appellant, while filing the appeal before this Tribunal, has filed 'statement of facts' in which it has been stated as under: "The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of land development and real estate. For the year under consideration, the assessee firm had filed its return of income on 18.01.2018, declaring a total income of Rs. 5,44,520/-. The return was selected for scrutiny under CASS guidelines and statutory notices were duly complied with. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) that the assessee firm had Total deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 29,00,000/- in its bank account maintained with The Gandevi Peoples' Co-op Bank Ltd., Account No. 802091503000489 during the demonetization period. The assessee firm subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Circular No. 19/2015 dated 27.11.2015 titled explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance Act 2015 in which this amendment was explained with the preamble. In order to curb generation of black money in cash in immovable transactions. The CBDT circular clearly states that the purpose of the amendment to section 269SS was to curb black money. This was the real object and purpose of the enactment of amendment to section 269SS and the interpretation of this amendment must fall in line with the advancement of that object and purpose. The object and purpose was not to strike at honest and bonafide transactions. The fact that the cash transactions of the assessee did not generate any black money has been established during the assessment proceedings and this section 269SS is not applicable in this case." 6. The appellant also submitted a 'Paper Book' containing various judicial decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court i.e. Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Bombay Conductors and Electricals Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 328 (Guj) wherein the Hon'ble High court has held as under: "9. The object of the introduction of Section 269SS of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... laid down by the apex court merely because it is lawful to do so without exercising discretion before imposing the penalty. In the result, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs." 7. The appellant has also placed reliance on the order of the Coordinate Bench of Amritsar Tribunal in the case of Aggarwal Construction Company Vs DCIT in ITA No. 370/Asr/2023 order dated 20/09/2024, ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Smt. Pushpalatha Vs ITO Ward 3(2)(1) in ITA No. 1192/Bang/2024 order dated 26/07/2024 and the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Wahid Ali Vs JCIT, Range-48, New Delhi in ITA No. 1916/Del/2020 order dated 08/01/2024 where penalty under Section 271D have been deleted on similar principles. 8. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the penalty under Section 271D of the Act is imposed for the contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act where loan, deposits or advances are received in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Courts that onus is on the asses....