Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (8) TMI 1137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A) has erred in dismissing the assessees appeal and confirming the Penalty imposed of Rs. 30,00,000/- by NFAC vide order dated 27-06-2024 without appreciating the fact that the NFAC has assumed the jurisdiction on the basis of alleged Show Cause Notice dated 07-09 2021 alleged to have been issued by JCIT Range -1 Tirupathi who had no jurisdiction in view of Faceless Penalty Scheme launched on 12-01-2021. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellate order confirming the Penalty order u/s 271D of the Act dated 28- 01-2022 without appreciating the fact that the Penalty so levied was barred by limitation of time. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellate order confirming the Penalty order u/s 271D of the Act dated 28- 01- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 01-2022 without appreciating the fact that the alleged Notice dated 07-09-2021 appears to have been issued after inordinate delay of |1100 from the date of knowledge of the AO. 9. Without prejudice to Ground No. 2 to 7, it is further urged that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellate order confirming the Penalty order u/s 271D of the Act dated 28 01-2022 without appreciating the fact that the Penalty proceedings u/s 271D are not liable to be initiated at the sweet will of the Authorities with inordinate delay in the guise of the fact that the Penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act are independent than the assessment proceedings. 10. Without prejudice to Ground No. 2 to 7, it is further urged that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... received the entire consideration in cash. As per provisions of section 269SS of the I.T. Act, 1961, no person shall take or accept any loan or deposit or 'specified sum' otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee draft or by use of electronic clearing system through bank account. For the purpose of this section, specified sum means any sum receivable whether as advance or otherwise in relation to transfer of an immovable property whether or not the transfer takes place. Therefore, the Assessing Officer opined that there is a contravention of provision of section 269SS of the I.T. Act, 1961 for accepting sale consideration in cash for sale of property and thus, issued a show cause notice calling upon the assessee to explain .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r u/s 269SS of the I.T. Act, 1961 and argued that 'specified sum' does not include sale consideration received towards sale of property. The learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant submission of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedents rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee and upheld the penalty levied u/s 271D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in sustaining penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271D of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction during assessment proceedin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT Hyderabad Benches in the case of Katasani Tirupati Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.372/Hyd/2023 order dated 5.7.2024 where the Tribunal by following the decision of the ITAT Chennai Benches in the case of Income Tax Officer vs. Shri R. Dhinagharan (HUF) in ITA No.3329/Chny/2019 dated 28.12.2033 held that 'specified sum' as per Explanation to section 269SS of the Act is only applicable for the advance receivable or advanced received in relation to transfer of any immovable property, but not to consideration received towards transfer of property. The relevant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e for advance receivable, namely, 'as advance or otherwise' means advance can be in any manner, and therefore, this provision will not apply to the transaction that happens when the final payment at the me of registration of sale deed and payment takes place before sub-registrar for registration of property. Relevant part of para-No.12.1 of the decision of the ITAT is as under : "From the above provisions, Memorandum explaining the intention of amendment by Finance Bill, 2015 including the definition of 'sum specified' brought in the Explanation to Section 269SS of the Act, it is clear that the intention for bringing this provision was to curb the generation of black money in real estate prohibiting acceptance or repayment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates