Saroj Sethi, Delhi V. JCIT, Range 36, Delhi

ITA 1170/DEL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0115 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 68; 271D

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1170/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2017-18) Saroj Sethi, vs. JCIT, Range 36, B – 413, Street No.04, New Delhi. Majlis Park, Adresh Nagar, Delhi – 110 033. (PAN : BAMPS2809C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 20.10.2022 Date of Order : 20.10.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 25.03.2022 and pertains to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The issue raised is that ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs.5,80,000/- under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 2 ITA No.1170/Del/2022 3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, assessee has received cash pursuant to transfer of immovable property. This was held to be in violation of section 269SS of the Act and upon the same, penalty u/s 271D of the Act was levied in an ex-parte order. Before the ld. CIT (A), assessee raised grounds including that of non-granting of opportunity of being heard. However, ld. CIT(A) referred to the amendment in Section 269SS and proceeded to confirm the penalty. 4. Against this order, assessee has come up in appeal before us. We have heard ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice. 5. We note that in this case, assessee has received cash consideration against sale of immovable property which is hit by the provisions of section 269SS as amended from 01.06.2015. The assessee before the authorities below has raised the ground that this was noted only from the bank statement and such addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act which are to be done with reference to entries in books of accounts. We note that assessee is an old lady and in the appeal, the assessee has raised a ground of non-granting of opportunity before the AO and ld. CIT (A). We note that the addition has been made on account of amendment in provisions of section 269SS which prohibited receipt of cash in sale of immovable property w.e.f. 01.06.2015. No doubt, in this case, the deed has been registered after the said date, however in absence of the sale deed, we are 3 ITA No.1170/Del/2022 unable to comment whether amount involved was received prior to the date of amendment or thereafter. This will be crucial in fastening the liability u/s 271D upon the assessee. In our considered opinion, interest of justice will be served if an opportunity of being heard before the authorities below is acceded to the assessee. Hence, we remit this issue to the file of AO. AO should decide the issue afresh in the light of our observations as above. Needless to add, an opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20 th day of October, 2022 after the conclusion of the hearing. Sd/- sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SHAMIM YAHYA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 20 th day of October, 2022 TS Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT (A) 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.