आदेश/ORDER

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 28.10.2025 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. “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 ought to have appreciated that there is no satisfaction recorded by the AO in the assessment order for assessment year 2017-18, in respect of violation of provisions of section 269SS as envisaged in the case of Srinivas Reddy Reddeppagari Vs JCIT WP No.44285/2022, dt: 26.12.2022, by the Jurisdictional High Court of Telangana, therefore, erred in confirming the order of the JCIT levying penalty of Rs.36,00,000/- u/s 271D of the IT Act.

3. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that it is a pre-requisite condition to levy penalty u/s 271D that there must be assessment proceedings in which the violation of 269SS is noticed, in the absence of any assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2017-18, the levy of penalty u/s 271D is bad in law, therefore, the learned CIT erred in confirming the order of the JCIT levying penalty of Rs.36,00,000/- u/s 271D of the IT Act.

4. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the time limits for levy of penalty starts from the date on which the AO referred the matter to the JCIT, for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271D for levy of penalty, in the absence of such a reference no time limits can be determined, therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 271D is bad in law and therefore, the learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the JCIT, levying penalty of Rs.36,00,000/- u/s 271D of the IT Act.

5. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend OR modify the 5 above grounds of appeal either before OR at the time of hearing R of the appeal, if it is considered necessary.

6. The learned CIT ought to have appreciated that no proceedings were pending before the JCIT, while initiating penalty proceedings on 13.02.2020, therefore, erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271D and further erred in levying penalty w/s 271D without any proceedings pending before the AO, therefore, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty order levying penalty of Rs.36,00,000/- u/s 271D of the IT Act.”

The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee is an individual and in the business of real estate. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold property vide Document No.4914/2016 for a consideration of Rs.30 lakhs, out of which, an amount of Rs.15 lakhs was received by way of cheque and balance sum of Rs.15 lakhs was received by way of cash on the date of sale. The assessee has also sold three properties during the year under consideration vide Documents dated 04.10.2016, 04.03.2017 and 04.03.2017 for a consideration of Rs.30 lakhs and Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.30 lakhs, respectively. The assessee received part payment in cheque and part payment in cash at the time of the registration of the sale documents. He has pointed out that the sale consideration received by the assessee in cash at the time of the registration before the Registrar does not fall in the ambit of Sec.269SS of the Act and therefore, there is no violation of the provisions of sec.269SS which is applicable only in the case of any loan or deposit or any specified sum. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Order of this Tribunal dated 10.10.2023 in ITA.No.652/Hyd./2022 in the case of Sri Bhoom Reddy Komatireddy, Karimnagar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Karimnagar. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has further submitted that an identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal vide order dated 1