SUBRAT KUMAR PANIGRAHI,GANJAM V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 281/CTK/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Subrat Kumar Panigrahi against the penalty confirmed by the CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which was initially levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was imposed on the grounds that the sale consideration for two properties sold by the assessee was received in cash, as the sale deed did not mention any cheque details. The assessee contended that the amount was received through RTGS, which was not accepted by the lower authorities. The Tribunal, after reviewing the bank statements provided by the assessee, concluded that the amounts were indeed received via RTGS, thus allowing the appeal and deleting the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708753 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NISHANTH RAO B
• Assessee Lawyers: S K SARANGI

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK” BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA No. 281/CTK/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Subrat Kumar Panigrahi Raja Rani Residency, Gosaninuagam, Brahmapur, Dist. Ganjam, Odisha-760003 Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Bhubaneswar Addl/ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Bhubaneswar-751007 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AIVPP6681M Assessee by : Shri SK Sarangi, AR Revenue by : Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR Date of hearing: 16.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 16.07.2025 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/250/2024-25/1074324173(1) dated 11.03.2025 for the A.Y. 2019-20, against the confirmation of penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act. 02. Shri SK Sarangi represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao P represented on behalf of the Revenue. 03. It was the submission that the assessee had sold two properties for a total consideration of ₹19,07,500/-. It was the submission that in the sale deed the cheque details were not mentioned and therefore, the ld. AO assumed that the sale consideration has been received in cash and penalty had been levied. It was submitted before the ld. AO that Page | 2 ITA No. 281/CTK/2025 Subrat Kumar Panigrahi; A.Y. 2019-20 assessee received the amount through RTGS which was not accepted by the ld. AO. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT (A) also upheld the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. AR drew our attention to page no. 6, which is the xerox copy of Passbook transactions read as follows: ” 04. And page 8 of the Paper Book which is the passbook extract of ICICI bank read as under: - Page | 3 ITA No. 281/CTK/2025 Subrat Kumar Panigrahi; A.Y. 2019-20 05. It was the submission that both the amounts have been received by RTGS and no penalty u/s 271D is leviable. 06. In reply, the ld. SR DR vehemently relied on the order of the ld. lower authorities. It was the submission that the breakup of ₹19,07,500/- is not clear. It was the submission that the sale deed mentions the amount of ₹10,43,873/- which is not seen anywhere in the bank passbook. Page | 4 ITA No. 281/CTK/2025 Subrat Kumar Panigrahi; A.Y. 2019-20 07. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the bank statement clearly shows that the assessee has received ₹14,07,500/- by RGGS from Pradeep Kumar Panigrahy and an amount of ₹5 lacs from Mr. Afroz Khan. The total sale consideration received is ₹19,07,500/-, which tallies with the sale consideration as mentioned in the sale document. As it is noticed that the amount had been received by the assessee from RTGS, the sale cannot be treated as cash received by the assessee. Consequently, the penalty levied by the ld. AO u/s 271D and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) stands deleted. 08. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 16.07.2025 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 "