JOGENDRA KUMAR PANDA,SAMBALPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

ITA 524/CTK/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around a penalty imposed on Jogendra Kumar Panda by the Income Tax Officer for allegedly violating section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to a cash transaction in the sale of immovable property. The transaction, recorded in a sale deed dated 23.03.2016, involved the receipt of \\u20b939,20,000 in cash. The Assessing Officer accepted the transaction initially but later initiated penalty proceedings for the assessment year 2017-18, claiming a violation of section 269SS. The assessee contested that the transaction occurred in the previous assessment year, 2016-17, and thus should not attract penalties for 2017-18. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the violation, if any, pertained to the earlier assessment year, 2016-17, and not 2017-18 as claimed by the Revenue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708905 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NISHANTH RAO B
• Assessee Lawyers: P.K.MISHRA; ARS

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK” BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA No. 524/CTK/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jogendra Kumar Panda AT-Kuretula, PO-Sakhipara Road, P.S. Sakhigopinath, Dist. Sambalpur-768001, Odisha Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Sambalpur Ainthapali Dist, Sambalpur- 768004, Odisha (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. BDHPP2043P Assessee by : Shri P.K. Mishra, ARs Revenue by : Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR Date of hearing: 17.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 17.07.2025 O R D E R PER PENCH: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in appeal no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070028931(1) dated 29.10.2024 for A.Y. 2017-18. 02. Shri P.K. Mishra represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao B, represented on behalf of the Revenue. 03. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had vide sale deed dated 23.03.2016, sold certain land being immovable property for sale a consideration of ₹39,20,000/-, which was received in cash. It was the submission that the ld. AO had examined sale deed and had accepted the transactions. The assessment order was also passed accepting the transaction. It was the submission that subsequently, for the A.Y. 2017- 18, the JCIT, Range-1, has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271D Page | 2 ITA No. 524/CTK/2024 Jogendra Kumar panda; A.Y. 2017-18 of the Act on account of violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) representing the cash transactions in respect of the sale of the assessee’s immovable property. It was the submission that the sale of the property took place during the A.Y. 2016-17 and there was no cash transaction in violation of provisions of provision of Section 269SS of the Act for the A.Y. 2017-18. It was the submission that the penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act for the A.Y. 2017-18 is liable to be quashed. 04. In reply, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that it was a typographical error in respect of the assessment year and that it was a technical issue, whereas there was a total violation of the provisions of the Section 269SS of the Act and that the assessment year should be read as A.Y. 2016-17. 05. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly show that for the assessment year that the transaction of the sale of the land was by a sale deed dated 23.03.2016, relevant to the A.Y. 2016-17. A perusal of the assessment order for the A.Y. 2017-18 also clearly shows that the ld. AO has examined the issue of the amount of ₹39,20,000/- received in cash for the A.Y. 2017-18 and has held that there was a contravention of the provision of Section 269SS of the Act and the penal provision of section 271D of the Act are attracted. However, no addition in respect of the said cash deposit of ₹39,20,000/- has been made. Admittedly, as the transaction of the sale of the land is relevant to the A.Y. 2016-17, the violation if at all should be considered in the A.Y. 2016-17, which admittedly has not been done. The said violation if any does not relate to the A.Y. 2017-18. Consequently, we are of the view that the penalty levied by the ld. AO Page | 3 ITA No. 524/CTK/2024 Jogendra Kumar panda; A.Y. 2017-18 and is confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is unsustainable and consequently, directing the AO to delete the same. 06. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 17.07.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack "