आदेश/ORDER

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 19.11.2025 of the learned CIT(A)--National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, arising from the penalty Order passed u/sec.271D of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961 for the assessment year 2017-2018.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

2. The Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs.63,74,600 levied by the AO u/s.271D of the Act.

3. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the Appellant received sale consideration during the Fy 2014-15 and that there are no violations to the provisions of section 269SS of the Act to attract penalty u/s.271D of the Act.

4. The authorities below failed to appreciate the sale agreement and sale deeds filed in proper perspective and erred in observing that there is no reference to the date of receiving sale consideration in the deeds. (Tax Effect: Rs.63,74,600).

5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

The assessee has challenged the validity of levy of penalty u/sec.271D of the Act by raising the additional grounds by filing a petition under Rule-11 of ITAT Rules, 1963. The additional grounds raised by the assessee reads as under:

1. “The penalty order dated 17.03.2022 levying penalty of Rs.63,74,600 under section 271D of the Act for the alleged violation of section 269SS of the Act, and the order of Id. CIT(A)/NFAC sustaining levy of penalty are illegal and bad in law.

2. Both the authorities below failed to appreciate that there is no finding in the assessment order nor there is any satisfaction recorded by the AO in the assessment order in respect of the alleged violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act, and therefore, the initiation of penalty, levy of penalty and sustaining such penalty are illegal and unsustainable in law and have to be set aside.

3. The penalty order passed by the NaFAC dated 17.03.2022 imposing penalty of Rs.63,74,600 is barred by limitation as per provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act read with provisions of TOLA and Circulars issued by CBDT.”

The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the additional grounds raised by the assessee are purely legal in nature and for adjudication of the same no new facts or material is required but the same can be adjudicated on the basis of the facts and material already available on record. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., vs., CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC).

On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that despite contesting the matter before the JCIT as well as before the learned CIT(A), the assessee did not raise these issues and has also not explained satisfactory reasons for raising these grounds first time before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the learned DR has opposed for admission of the additional grounds raised by the assessee.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The issue raised by the assessee in the additional grounds is purely legal in nature challenging the validity of the penalty order passed u/sec.271D of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not recorded any satisfaction while passing the assessment order uSec.143(3) dated 03.12.2019. Therefore, this issue of validity of the Order passed u/sec.271D in the absence of the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer can be adjudicated on the basis of the facts and material available on record and no fresh material or facts are required to be verified for adjudication of the issue which is purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter. Accordingly, by following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National