Jogendra Kumar Panda Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench, has allowed an appeal filed by Jogendra Kumar Panda, quashing a penalty of ₹39,20,000/- levied under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty, imposed for alleged violation of Section 269SS concerning cash transactions, was set aside due to being initiated for an incorrect assessment year.
The assessee had sold immovable property for ₹39,20,000/- via a sale deed dated March 23, 2016, with the consideration received in cash. This transaction was relevant to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initially accepted this transaction in the assessment order for A.Y. 2017-18.
Subsequently, the JCIT, Range-1, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271D for A.Y. 2017-18, citing a violation of Section 269SS due to the cash receipt. The assessee contended that the property sale occurred in A.Y. 2016-17, and therefore, no violation for A.Y. 2017-18 existed.
The revenue argued that the mention of A.Y. 2017-18 was a “typographical error” and a “technical issue,” asserting a clear violation of Section 269SS.
The ITAT, after reviewing the submissions, noted that the land sale transaction was dated March 23, 2016, making it relevant to A.Y. 2016-17. While the AO had examined the cash receipt in the A.Y. 2017-18 assessment order and noted a contravention, no addition was made. The Tribunal concluded that any violation of Section 269SS, if at all, pertained to A.Y. 2016-17, not A.Y. 2017-18. Consequently, the penalty levied and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable. The ITAT directed the AO to delete the penalty.
