आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1961/Hyd/2025 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year:2016-17)

Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bollapragada, Ward-13(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

PAN: ABMPB7770R (Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing: 24/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 26/02/2026 Pronouncement:

आदेश / ORDER PER. RAVISH SOOD, J.M:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 27/10/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-13, Hyderabad under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 30/06/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in rejecting the request of the appellant to condone the delay of meagre 2 days, in filing the appeal before him without considering the reasons given by the appellant.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. JCIT and Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the responses and documents filed by the appellant before them, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The penalty order is void ab initio.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice U/s 274 r.ws 2710 dated 31-12-2021 be held invalid being issued after the expiry of the financial year in which the assessment proceedings are completed, particularly in absence of the imposition of penalty in the course of assessment proceedings, completed vide order dated 25-10-2018. Thus, the penalty order is barred by limitation 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.

JCIT and Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that:

(a) The seller party to the regd. Power of Attorney dated 07-11-2025 for a consideration of Rs.33,34,000/- is Mrs. B. Vara Lakshmi, Spouse of appellant.

(b) The appellant is neither a buyer nor a seller in the Power of Attorney.

(c) The property under the Power of Attorney is not owned by the appellant.

(d) The cash is deposited by the buyer directly into the joint account held by the appellant with his spouse.

(e) The consideration does not relate to the appellant, but relates to the spouse of the appellant.

(f) The assessment proceedings completed vide order dated 25/10/2018 in the hands of the appellant does not refer to any violation of compliance to the provisions of Section 269SS.

(g) The spouse of the appellant had purchased / invested in another property vide deed dated 27-08-2015 for Rs. 34,00,000/- being eligible for claim for benefit U/s 54F of the Act.

The appellant prays that the penalty levied U/s 271D be deleted.

5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend and/or after the above ground of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2016-17 on 28/07/2016 declaring an income of Rs.4,57,977/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” under CASS for examining the cash deposits made in his bank account.

3. Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 25/10/2018 after making necessary verifications had accepted the returned income of the assessee as such.

4. The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-13, Hyderabad, based on the information received from the AO that the assessee had during the subject year accepted cash of Rs.33,34,000/- on sale of land vide sale deed, dated 07/11/2015, an