आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.1617 & 1722/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Kesireddy Ravinder Reddy, Uppal, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 039.

Ward-11(1, PAN APYPK7089Q vs.

Signature Towers, Yata Ramchander, Hyderabad - 500084.

Uppal, Hyderabad.

PIN -500039.

Telangana.

PAN ACVPY9822D Telangana.

(Appellants) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा /Assessee by: Sri Mohd Afzal, Advocate राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा /Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

These two appeals by two related assessees are directed against the two separate Orders of the learned CIT(A) dated 04.08.2025 and 02.10.2025 arising from penalty order passed u/sec.271D respectively, for the assessment year

2017-2018.

2. The assessees have raised identical grounds in these appeals. For the purpose of recording the facts the appeal ITA.No.1617/Hyd./2025 is taken as “lead” case. The assessee has raised the following grounds in ITA.No.1617/

Hyd./2025.

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (Appeals)

is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case.

2. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the JCIT-Range-15, u/s 271D of the IT Act, wherein, an amount of Rs.7,82,500/- is levied as penalty for violation of provision of section 269SS of the IT Act.

3. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order u/s 271D of the IT Act which does not mention the PAN number of the assessee which is a mandatory requirement.

4. The learned Joint Commissioner levied penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act at Rs.7,82,500/- in which there is no satisfaction recorded by the AO stating that there is a violation of section 269SS, which caused escapement of income OR concealment of income. in the absence of such a satisfaction by the Assessing Officer in the case of assessee, the learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order u/s 271D of the IT Act.

5. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act at Rs.7,82,500/- is levied, wherein, the JCIT/AO has not initiated penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s

271D and also the ICIT has not issued a show cause notice, according an opportunity to the assessee, therefore, there is a violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the learned CIT erred in confirming penalty order u/s 271D of the IT Act.

6. The learned CIT erred in confirming the order of the JCIT, levying penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act amounting to Rs.7,82,500/-

wherein, the provisions of section 275 are violated.

7. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend OR modify the 7 above grounds of appeal either before OR at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary.”

3. The assessees before us transferred an immovable property vide sale deed dated 29.07.2016 for a total sale consideration of Rs.45,21,000/- having 50% share each. Out of the total sale consideration, a sum of Rs.15,65,000/- was received in cash. The assessee has filed his return of income on 04.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,76,590/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961. It appears that the return of income was processed u/sec.143(1) of the Act and thereafter, the penalty proceedings were initiated u/sec.271D of the Act for violation of the provisions of sec.269SS of the Act vide show cause notice dated 16.08.2019. The JCIT levied the penalty of Rs.7,82,500/-

u/sec.271D in each case being 50% share in receipt of cash in the transaction of sale of property. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the learned CIT(A) but could not succeed.

4. Before the Tribunal, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has