TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The word 'Act' herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271D amounting to Rs. 1,50,17,400/- on the ground that quantum addition has been deleted by the ITAT, disregarding the fact that penalty u/s 271D is independent of quantum addition in the assessment order as elaborated in the CBDT circular No. 10/2016 dated 26.04.2016 and circular no. 09/DV/2016 dated 26.04.2016. 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271D amounting to Rs. 1,50,17,400/- on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the same property was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,49,00,000/-. The ld. Assessing Officer Noted that the cheque numbers in the two agreements were same. The ld. Assessing Officer therefore concluded that the purchase price was Rs. 4.49 crores out of which Rs. 1.49 crores was transacted through bank and balance Rs. 3 Crores by cash. As the appellant assessee was 50% owner, the Ld. Assessing Officer held him to the recipient of cash of Rs. 1,50,17,400/-. Invoking the provision of section 269SS of the Act, penalty proceedings u/s 271D were initiated. In first appeal, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld Assessing Officer. In appeal a coordinate bench of this tribunal in ITA No.435/Del/2025 deleted the impugned addition by relying upon the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whether the penalty under Section 271D is independent of the assessment or not. The issue in particular was regarding the compliance to be made to timelines for passing of a penalty order u/s 275 of the Act. In these cases, the penalty under Section 271D was initiated at the time of assessment but was kept in abeyance till the disposal of appeal on assessment order by the appellate authority as per section 275(1)(a). The penalty was then imposed after receiving the appellate order in accordance to time limit under Section 275(1)(a). The assessee argued that penalty u/s 271D has no bearing on assessment, and therefore penalty can be levied only within the financial year or 6 months from the end of month in which penalty was initiated whiche....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ault e.g. penalty for not deducting tax at source while making payment to employees, or contractor, or for that matter not making payment through cheque or demand draft where it is so required to be made. Either of the contingencies does not affect the computation of taxable income and levy of correct tax on chargeable income; if clause (a) was to be invoked, no necessity of clause (c) would arise." 8. Coming to the factual matrix of the case, we have noted that the case of the Revenue is not favourably served even considering the above judicial precedents. We have noted that the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,50,17,400/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer as representing cash receipt is not based upon any cogent docu....