9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 023 arising out of the order passed U/s. 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], dated 25/3/2022 for the AY 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee (Sri Vijapurapu Suryanarayana Rao), is an individual. The assessee e-filed his return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 25/07/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 10,26,020/-. Thereafter, the return was summarily processed by the CPC, Bengaluru and an order U/s. 143(1) of the Act was passed on 1/11/2017. Subsequently, the assessee filed his revised return of income on 1/11/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 44,81,290/- which includes capital gains of Rs. 34,65,000/- on sale of vacant site admeasuring 231 sq yds at Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam. On receiving the information by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the penalty levied by the Ld.AO-NFAC U/s. 271D of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the penalty order passed on 25/03/2022 U/s. 271D of the Act as barred by limitation. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the penalty of Rs. 29,65,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer U/s. 271D of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing." 3. At the outset, the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Narendra Kumar Chunilal Soni vs. JCIT in ITA No. 195/Ahd/2022, dated 17/5/2023 but heavily relied on the decision of this Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Kanchumarthi Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao in ITA Nos. 245 & 246/Viz/2020, dated 30/08/2022. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative heavily relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and argued in support of their decision. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. The core issue involved in the grounds raised by the assessee is with respect to validity of levy of penalty U/s. 271D on account of receipt of cash in relation to transfer of immovable property by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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." 6. The objective of the amendment proposed in 269SS of the Act is to curb generation of black money. In the instant case the fact is that cash received by the assessee has been deposited by the assessee into the bank account, hence does not attract the provisions of section 269SS of the Act since there is no suppression of cash receipts by the assessee. The assessee has also offered the capital gains to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
