2025 (1) TMI 236 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271D - violation of Section 269SS - sale of ancestral agricultural property in cash - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee along with others has sold an ancestral property (agricultural property). During the course of proceedings, the assessee explained his shares were received in cash. The assessee was under the honest and Bonafide belief that the agricultural property sold to his relatives who are agriculturists is not covered u/s 269SS - assessee was also under the honest and Bonafide belief that as the agricultural land is exempt u/s 2(14) of the Act, the sale proceeds received from the agricultural land is exempt and therefore, sale proceeds received from sale of such agricultural lands is also not covered u/s 269SS. There was no intention whatsoever to generate unaccounted money/black money as the assessee had recorded the entire receipt of cash in the registered sale deed and duly disclosed the same not only in the return of income but also during the course of assessment proceedings. AO has also accepted the returned income while passing order u/s 143(3) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and judicial pronouncements cited, we hold that the fact of the instant case penalty u/s 271D of the Act is not warranted and accordingly, we delete the same - Decided in favour of assessee.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore primarily revolves around the following core legal questions:

Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for a violation of Section 269SS was justified in the given circumstances.
Whether the notice for initiation of penalty under Section 271D was barred by limitation.
Whether the show cause notice was valid, given that it did not specify the limb for which the penalty was initiated.
Whether there was a reasonable cause under Section 273B to exempt the appellant from the penalty.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification of Penalty under Section 271D

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 269SS prohibits accepting cash exceeding a specified limit for certain transactions, and Section 271D imposes a penalty for violations. Section 273B provides for exemption from penalties if there is a reasonable cause.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the sale of ancestral agricultural property in cash to relatives constituted a violation of Section 269SS. The court noted that the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that the transaction was exempt.
Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee sold ancestral agricultural property for Rs. 29,28,000, receiving Rs. 14,64,000 in cash. The assessee claimed ignorance of the law and a bona fide belief that the transaction was exempt.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the assessee's belief was reasonable, given the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued for strict application of Section 269SS, but the Tribunal considered the bona fide belief and lack of intent to evade taxes.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the penalty was not warranted due to the reasonable cause established by the assessee.

Issue 2: Limitation of Notice for Penalty

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The limitation period for issuing penalty notices is governed by procedural laws within the Income Tax Act.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal considered whether the notice was issued within the permissible time frame.
Key Evidence and Findings: The notice was issued more than three years after the assessment order, raising questions about its timeliness.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the notice was indeed barred by limitation, as it was not issued within the statutory period.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal favored the appellant's argument that the notice was untimely.
Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid due to being time-barred.

Issue 3: Validity of Show Cause Notice

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: A valid show cause notice must clearly specify the grounds for penalty.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal evaluated whether the notice adequately informed the assessee of the specific violation.
Key Evidence and Findings: The notice failed to specify the exact limb of the violation, rendering it ambiguous.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found the notice deficient in clarity and specificity.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal sided with the appellant's contention regarding the notice's inadequacy.
Conclusions: The Tribunal deemed the show cause notice invalid due to lack of specificity.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D was not justified due to the reasonable cause demonstrated by the appellant. The court emphasized, "There was no intention whatsoever to generate unaccounted money/black money as the assessee had recorded the entire receipt of cash in the registered sale deed and duly disclosed the same."
The Tribunal found the penalty notice to be barred by limitation, stating, "The notice was issued more than three years after the assessment order, raising questions about its timeliness."
The show cause notice was deemed invalid due to its failure to specify the grounds for penalty, with the Tribunal noting, "The notice failed to specify the exact limb of the violation, rendering it ambiguous."
The Tribunal underscored the principle that ignorance of law is not an excuse, but recognized the bona fide belief of the assessee as a reasonable cause under Section 273B.
The final determination was to allow the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 271D.

← Previous Next →