SHRI JATINDER SINGH , AMRITSAR V. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1, AMRITSAR

ITA 231/ASR/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Jatinder Singh, the appellant, who challenged the order of the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, regarding a penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for alleged violation of section 269SS. The appellant argued that the penalty was unjustified as the transaction in question, involving cash payment of Rs. 4 lakhs for land sale, did not contravene section 269SS. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty without adequately addressing the appellant's documentary evidence and request for the sale deed. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to contest the penalty, violating principles of natural justice, and thus remanded the matter back to the CIT Appeal for a fresh adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114584 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 271D; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 231/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jatinder Singh, Vill. –Chhina, Post office- Navapind, Amritsar-143001 [PAN: BGEPS2476K] (Appellant) V. Addl./JCIT, Range-1, Amritsar (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Amit Handa, CA Respondent by Sh. NakulAgrawal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: In the captioned appeal, the appellant has challengedthe order of the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 31.10.2022 in respect of Assessment Year: 2012-13, in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. At the outset the learned counsel for the assesse summited that the CIT Appeal erred in confirming penalty under section 271D of the income 2 I.T.A. No. 231/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 tax act 1961, levied in violation to the provisions of section 269SS of the act. The learned AR submitted that the CIT was not justified in upholding, the penalty order passed under section 271D of the income tax act by the assessing officer without rebutting the documentary evidence, the copy of the sale deed, which was the subject matter, forming the basis for the order of the levy of penalty under section 271D of the act. The AR explained that he filed all detail written submissions before CIT appeal, along with documentary evidence to explain that the sum paid was not in contravention to the provisions of section 269SS of the act (APB, Pgs 30). He also requested that the appellant may be supplied the copy of the sale deed, forming the very basis of the alleged transaction in contravention to section 269SS of the act. Accordingly, he pleaded that, the matter may be remanded back to the file of the learned CIT appeal with the direction to adjudicate the matter afresh after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. Per contra, the learned additional CIT DR has supported the impugned order. However, he has no objection to the request of appellant is remanding the matter back to the file of the CIT appeal. 4. We have heard both sides and perused the material on record. The CIT appeal has observed that the appellant has not furnished any cogent 3 I.T.A. No. 231/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 explanation regarding the reasonable cause for accepting cash of Rs. 4 lakhs towards sale Proceeds of the land in contravention to the provisions of section 269SS and 271D of the act. The CIT has further discussed that appellant has admitted that he had received sale proceeds of his land amounting to Rs. 4 lakhs in cash to clear his loan account with state bank of Patiala, and therefore subsequent submissions of any other documents is clearly, an afterthought to avoid the rigors of penalty under section 271D of the act. However, he has not discussed, the contents of the admission of the appellant assesse as regards to the cash receipt of 4 lakhs from sale proceeds of land. 5. From the impugned order, it is evidence that the appellant has not been provided a copy of the sale deed, the basic document to determine the quantum, and the very nature of the receipts from sale proceeds of land held by the authorities below to be in contravention to the provisions of section 269SS of the act. In our view, it is necessary to provide the copy of the sale deed so as to enable the appellant assesse to explain the mode of transaction of receipt of the sale proceeds land in compliance to the provisions of section 269SS of the act. 6. It is evident that the learned CIT appeal has used the information against appellant buthe didn’t rebut the said information to the appellant, 4 I.T.A. No. 231/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 though it goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, the CIT was not justified in penalizing, the appellant unheard in view of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we consider it deem fit to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT Appeal to adjudicate the issue of levy of penalty under section 271D afresh, after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard, after providing the copy of the sale deed, and other information to the assesse in rebuttal. Thus, the matter is restored to the CIT Appeal. No doubt, the appellant assesse shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the learned CIT Appeal. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for the statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 13 /06/2023 Sd/- Sd/- (AnikeshBanerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member A.G/Doc* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT(A) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order