MANJINDER SINGH GREWAL,JAGRAON V. ADDITIONAL/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

ITA 1191/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Shri Manjinder Singh Grewal against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was based on the grounds that the assessee had violated Section 269SS by accepting a cash deposit exceeding Rs. 20,000. The assessee argued that the cash received was earnest money from a land sale, temporarily deposited for safety by his father, an agriculturist without a bank account. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation, leading to the deletion of the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783388 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: AVNEESH THAKUR

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ “एकल” चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “SMC” CHANDIGARH Įी संजय गग[, ÛयाǓयक सदèय BEFORE: SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1191/CHD/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Manjinder Singh Grewal, # 95, Bhumal, Jagraon. बनाम The Addl/DCIT, Ludhiana. èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: EUHPS0565K अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Avneesh Thakur, Advocate and Shri Yogesh Thakur, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 03.11.2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025 HYBRID HEARING आदेश/ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.10.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT (Appeals)] pertaining to 2009-10 assessment year. 2. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of CIT (Appeals) in confirming the penalty levied by the Printed from counselvise.com ITA 1191/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 2 Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the AO noticed that assessee had received Rs.20 lacs in cash during the Financial Year 2008-09, which was deposited in his bank account maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank on 10.05.2008. The AO observed that the assessee had violated the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act by accepting loan or deposit in cash greater than Rs.20,000/-. He, therefore, show caused the assessee in this respect. The assessee explained before the AO that the father of the assessee Shri Roop Singh had entered into a contract for sale of his land with one Shri Pardeep Singh S/o Shri Maggar Singh and received Rs.20 lacs from him as earnest money. Since his father was an agriculturist, who did not have any operating bank account, therefore, the said amount of Rs.20 lacs was deposited by him into the account of the assessee for a short duration, only for the purpose of safety and security. That the amount was withdrawn and paid back to him just after 5 days of the deposit. It was, therefore, submitted that the aforesaid deposit of Rs.20 lacs into the account of the assessee was not any loan or deposit and hence, the assessee had not done anything in contravention of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA 1191/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 3 provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. It was, therefore, pleaded that it was not a case of levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act. The AO, however, did not get satisfied with the above reply of the assessee and levied the impugned penalty, which has been further confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). 4. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. The assessee has duly explained that his father was an agriculturist who did not have any operating bank account. It has also been duly explained that his father had received earnest money on account of sale of land which, for the very short period was parked into the account of the assessee for the purpose of safety and security. The above plea of the assessee has not been rebutted by the Revenue. In view of this, it is not a case of levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act and the same is, accordingly, ordered to be deleted. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced on 04th November,2025. Sd/- ( संजय गग[) (SANJAY GARG ) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/ Judicial Member “Poonam” Printed from counselvise.com ITA 1191/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 4 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुÈत (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "