Damodar Rao Bibinagar V. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax

ITTA/22/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Damodar Rao Bibinagar, the appellant, who challenged the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Department for making a cash transaction exceeding the limit set under Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. The penalty of Rs. 13,10,000 was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant argued that the authorities did not comply with the provisions of Section 273B, which provides certain immunities to taxpayers. However, the court found that the appellant had not responded to the show-cause notice, and thus the penalty was rightly imposed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 727194 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: SIRIPURAM KESHAVA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2017-18; Cash transaction; Income Tax; Penalty; Show cause notice
• Section: 274; 271D; 273B; 269SS; 260-A

Judgement Text

"[ 337e I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY , AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI INCOME TAX TRIBU NAL APPEAL NO: 22 OF 2024 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order daled 27.12.2023 passed in ITA No.609/Hydl2023 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches, \"SMC\", Hyderabad, for assessment Year 2017-18 preferred against the order dated 04.12.2023 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2016-1 7 t10176162 on the file of the commissioner of the lncome Tax/ (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre (NFAC), Delhi preferred against the order dated 28.09.2022 passed in PAN/GIR No. AFJPB5620F on the file of the lncome Tax Department Between: Damodar Rao Bibinagar, S/o Bramachary Bibinagar Age-d qb-9.ul .69.years, Occ: Retired Employee R/o H.No 1-8-74l6,Chikkadapally' Hyderabad,Telangana-500020. ...APPELLANT AND The Additional Commissioner of lncome-tax, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under section 15'l of cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not take any coercive steps pursuant to Penalty proceedings initiated Uts 271D for an amount of Rs.13,10,0001 vide order dt.28logl2o22 pending adjudication of the present Appeal. \"rZ Gounsel for the Appellant : Sri Siripuram Keshava Counsel for the Respondent : - The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.22 of 2024 JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Sri Justi.e P'SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr. Siripuram Keshava, learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee. 2. The instant is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act') preferred by the assessee assailing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (herein referred to as 'the Tribunal') in I.T.A.No.609 lHydl2023 otr 27.12.2023 for the assessment year 2Ol7-18. 3, Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeais) as also the order passed by the Assessment Offrcer so far as the penalty under Section 27lD of the Act is concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contendcd that the authorities concerned have not complied with the provisions of Section 27 39 of the Act which provides for certain immunity to the taxpayer. 2 5. Perusal of the records would show that admittedly the assessee has been issued with a show-cause notice under Section 274 of the Act which in fact is the procedure prescribed under the statute required to be initiated before the order of penalty is finalized' In spite of the admitted fact that the show-cause notice was issued under Section2T4 of the Act to the assessee, there does not seem to have been any written reply provided by the assessee to the said shor.l,-cause notice and in the process, the authorities concerned have invoked provision of Section 2ZtD of the Act imposing penalty upon the assessee for having paid an amount of Rs. 13,1O,00O /- by way of cash in the process of selling of his property for a sale consideration of Rs.Sg, lO,00O/-. 6. If we rook into the provisions of Section 269sS of the Act, it has been statutorily mandated that there sha_ll not be any cash transactions in excess of Rs.20,OO0/_. The very same statute under Section 27lD also prescribes that in the event if there is violation of the requirement under Section 26955 of the Act, the concerned person would be liable for a penalty under Section 2TlD ofthe Act. It is these verv provisions which respondent authorities. have been invoked by the 7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the provision of Section 27 3B of the Act has not 3 been complied with, th for the simple reason received the notice und e said contention does not have much force that the assessee himself admits to have er Section 224 and that is envisaged under n 2738 of the Act which requires an opportunity of hearing Passing aI order of penalty. 8. In view of the same, we do not find any merits in the appeal preferred by the assessee much Iess a substantia-l question of Iaw made out as is required under Section 260A of the Act. 9. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if arly, shall stand closed. Sectio before To, Sd/- M. VIJAYA BHAS JOINT REGIS R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches, \"St 4C\", Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of the lncome Tax/ (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 3. The 4. One CC to Sri Siripuram Keshava, Advocate [OPUC,] 5. Two CD Copies b Nj d I HIGH COURT DATED: 0610312024 JUDGMENT lTTA.No'22 of 2024 DISMISSING THE ITTA WITHOUT COSTS d,,.,I't h,y,= e 1vl E sTAret ?.?- APR 2.Uq z o /.t f, J ,.) .,tr+ * t oEs PATC I I o "