Penalty u/s 271D barred by limitation from AO's reference date; cash sale proceeds of agricultural land not attract s.269SS due to reasonable cause u/s 273B and legislative intent against black money in advances.

ORDER

PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :

The appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate, but identical orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Hyderabad (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) all dated 01.07.2025, pertaining to the assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19, respectively. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, the same were heard together and are being disposed off, by this single consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

2. First, we take up appeal in ITA No. 1255/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17. The grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are re- produced as under:

“1.The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty of Rs. 26,19,39,954/- u/s 271D of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the imposition of penalty u/s 271D for a sum of Rs. 26,19,39,954/-.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the time limit for passing the order u/s 271D of the Act is to be taken from the date of the proposal for levying penalty u/s 271D submitted by the AO to the JCIT to the date of passing order u/s 271D, which time period is barred by limitation and to quash the penalty order u/s 271D dt. 29.06.2024.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the assessment order I passed on 30.12.2019 u/s 143(3) rws 153A of the Act was set aside by the Hon'ble ITAT Vide order in ITA Nos. 266/Hyd/2021 dt. 10.01.2022, the satisfaction note u/s 271D recorded was not cancelled by the Hon'ble ITAT, and therefore, it cannot be carried to record in the order u/s 254, which thus the order passed u/s 271D on 29.06.2024 is without recording satisfaction.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that no penalty is levied u/s 271D of the Act as the exceptional conditions u/s 2695S are applicable.

7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the land being agricultural land, the sale proceeds from that land do not represent income so as to attract the provisions of section 271D rws 269SS of the Act

8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the sale consideration of Rs. 26,19,39,954/- is in the nature of sale and not in the nature of loans or advances or deposits and thus there is no violation of provisions of section 271D rws 269SS of the Act.

9. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the sale proceeds in respect of the land were directly deposited to the bank account of the assessee by the vendee, and that the provisions of section 269SS are not applicable in the hands of the appellant and thus, the levy of penalty u/s 271D is bad in law.

10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the journal entries were passed only for the sake of matching the books of accounts and the assessee has never received any amount in the form of cash from incredible India Projects Private Limited and thus levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act is not correct.

11. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that, when the transaction between the trust and IIPL is genuine, and the same was due to discharging the loan taken from the bank on pledge of the said property in question, then no penal proceedings u/s 271D of the Act are to be initiated in case of the assessee.

12. The appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute o