AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal of the Revenue is dir ected against the order dated 06.10.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC , Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the penalty imposed u/s 271D of the Act vide penalty order dated 02.03.2022 was deleted and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Facts in brief as culled out from the authorities below are that the assessee filed original r eturn of income for A.Y. 2017-18 electronically on 01.08.2017 declaring the total income of Rs.23,94,860/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny by CASS by issuing no tice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 13.08.2018 followed by notices u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 05.02.2019, 18.04.2019, 06 .05.2019, 16.10.2019, 04.11.2019, 14.11.2019 alo ngwith sho w-cause notices dated 19.11.2019, 04.12.2019 & 06.12.2019. The said notices and show-cause notice were issued online to the assessee through e-filing portal. The assessee filed reply on various dates alongwith written submissions. It was noted by the ld. AO that the assessee has earned income from ho use property, long-term capital loss and income from other sources and on examining the submissions/documents furnished by the asse ssee, returned income of Rs.23 ,94,860/- was accepted and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
Subsequent to the completion of the asse ssment vide order dated 14.12.2019, the penalty proceedings were initiated separately on the premise that during assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished docume ntary evidence to substantiate loss claimed under the head from long-term capital gain. The said documentary evidence was in the form of a registered sale deed No. 18631 dated 03.10.2016 towards sale o f commercial property comprising 224.207 sq. yards at SCO No. 55, Old Judicial Comp lex, Civil Lines, Gurugram and has re ceived a sale consideration of Rs. 2,80 ,00,000/-. It was further noticed that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- in cash out of the total co nsideration. During the scrutiny proceedings, vide letter dated 27.11.2019, the assessee has confirmed the above cash transactio n stating that the assessee has deposited the same cash into bank acco unt and filed copy of the bank statement for confirmation. The Assessing Officer dealing with the penalty proceedings was of the opinion that the assessee has violated the provisio n of section 269SS of the Act and liable to penal action u/s 271 D of the Act. Accordingly, notice dated 29.04.2021 for penalty proceedings u/s 27 1D of the Act was initiated. Subsequently, the proceedings were transferred to Natio nal Faceless Assessment Centre who issued a show-cause notice for penalty u/s 271D of the Act on 28.08.2021. Fur ther, another show- cause notice dated 07.0 9.2021 was issued to the asse ssee . Another show-cause notice dated 12.01.2022 was also issued which was issued on 17.01.2022 physically thro ugh speed post but assessee did not furnish any reply to the said notices and penalty proceedings were conducted ex-parte. Co nclusion of the penalty proceedings is contained in paras 13 to 16 extracted below as under:
“13.In t his i nstant cas e, the a ssesee rec eived an amount of Rs. 75,00,000/-partly i n cas h out of total sale co nsideration of Rs. 2.80 cror es of an immovabl e property, hence, contravened wit h t he provisions of section 269SS, and liable for conseque ntial penal action u/s. 271D of the A ct.
14.Ther efore, i n vi ew of the above discussion, it is clearly understo od that t he assessee has violated t he provisions of section 269SS of the Inc ome Tax Act, 1961. Further, no reasonable caus e has been submitt ed by the ass essee for such fail ure , despite ample opport unity afforded to the assessee. Henc e, i n vi e w o f the absence of submissi ons to t he contrary , it is pres umed that the assessee has no explanati on to off er in t his regard.
15.Ther efore, it is a fit case for l evy of p enalty u/s. 271 D of the Ac t for failure to c omply wi th the provisions of secti on 269SS of the Ac t. The pe nalty l eviable u/s. 271D of the Act , shal l be the sum equal to the amount of sale consider ati on of Rs. 75,00,000/- received by t he assesse i n cash. T herefore, by way of penalt y a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five la khs ) onl y is hereby l evied as pe nalty u/s. 271D of the I T Act, 1961 for the Asst. Year 2017-18.
16.As per the suggestions made by t he Review Uni t are incorporat ed and neces sar y changes hav e been made. The above dema nd shoul d be paid as per enclosed noti ce of demand u/s . 15 6 of the Act.”
Aggrieved by the penalty so imposed, the assessee challenged the same before the ld. CIT(A) wherein vario us legal precedents were submitted/relied by the assessee in the written submissions and the relevant citations relied and referred alongwith find ings of the ld. CIT(A) contained in paras 5 to 7 are extracted below as under:
“5 . The appellant ’s writt en submis sio ns regardi ng this issue are reproduc ed as under:-
“3 . B efore proceedi ng furt her, some more facts need to be noted. T he assess ee is a lady, who is stayi ng in village Ramgar h, Badshapur , G urugram Haryana. S he has i nter-alia declared agricultur al inc ome of Rs . 2,05,000/- implying that she is also enga ged in agric ultural activities.. In s uch circumstances, it cannot be expected that she will be fully conve rsant with all technic alities of law, i ncl uding the provisions of section 269SS and section 27 ID of the Act. Further , she has declared sale c onside ration of Rs 2.80 crore and the sal e deed itself shows t wo c as h receipts of Rs. 32,00,000 and R s. 43,00,000/- o n 30.08.2016 and 22.08.2016 respectively (PB 16 ). Thi s coupl ed with the fact t hat the amount was deposited i n t he bank acco unt (P B 21) clearly shows the bonafi de of t he assessee that she had no i nt ention whatsoeve r f or ev adi ng tax. Therefore, it is submitted t hat in suc h a situati on penalty should not have been l evi ed as t he explanati on of the as se ssee is bona-fi de a nd the re existed reaso nabl e caus e i n accepting cash as part sale consideration, as usually happe ns i n t he large number of cases .
4.We may refer to t he Explanator y Memor andum of Fi nance Act 2015 (PB 22- 23 ), r egardi ng clauses 66, 67, 69 and 70 under the head “B ”. Measures to C urb Black Money". The memorandum i n this r espect reads as under:
"Mode of taki ng or accepting certain lo ans, deposits and specifi ed sums a nd mode of repayment of l oans or deposits and specified advances .
The existi ng provisions c ontained i n section 269SS of the i nc ome-tax Act provide that no person shall take shall tak e from any person any loan or deposi t ot herwise t han by an account payee cheque or acco unt pay ee bank dra ft or online transfer thro ugh a bank acco unt, if the am ount of s uch loan or deposit is twe nty t housand rupe es or mor e. However, c ertain excepti on have been provided i n the secti on .Si milarl y, the existing provi sions c ontained i n secti on 269T of the Income-t ax Act pr ovide t hat any l oan or deposi t shall not he repaid, otherwise tha n by an acco unt pay ee c heque or acc ount payee bank draft or onli ne tr ansfer through a bank acc ount, by the persons specified in the sectio n if the am ount of loan or deposit is t wenty thousand rupees or more.
In order to curb ge neration of black money by way of dealings in cas h in i mmovable proper ty transactions it is propos ed to ame nd secti on 269SS, of the Income tax Act so as to provide tha t no person shall acce pt from any pers on any loan or deposi t or any s um of money, whether as advanc e or otherwise, i n relati on to tra nsfer o f an immovable property otherwis e t han by an account paye e cheque or account p ayee bank draft or by el ectronic cle ari ng syst em through a bank acco unt, if the amount of such l oa n or deposit or such specified sum is twenty t housand rupees or mor e.
It is also proposed to amend s ection 269T of t he Income-t ax Act so as t o provide that no person, s hall repay any loan or deposit made with it or any specified advance rec eiv ed by it. other wise them by an acco unt paye e cheque or account payee bank draft or by el ectronic clearing system through a bank acc ount , if the am ount or aggregat e amo unt of loans or deposits or specified ad vanc es is twenty thous and rupees or mor e. The s pecifie d advance shal l mean any sum of money in the natur e of an a dvanc e.
4.1The me morandum makes it amply cl ear that amendment t o section 269SS, bri ngi ng i n the c once pt of "specifi ed sums" was underta ken to c ur b blac k money i nvolved in transac ti ons of i mmovabl e prop erti es. It is cl early mentione d that in or der to curb generation of black money by way of dealings i n cash in im movable prop erty transactio ns it is propos ed to amend secti on 269SS. In t he cas e of the assessee, no doubt c ash has been accepted but it is not unacc ounted c as h, and this cash for ms part o f overall sales c onsideration mentioned in the s ale deed (PB 16). This money has been deposited i n he r bank acco unt (PB 21). Ther efor e, in the spirit of the mem orandum the penalty may be del eted bec aus e there is no i ntention whatsoever to generate blac k money or evade tax. This mus t be seen i n t he c ontext of the fact t hat t he assessee stays in a village and undertake s a gricult ural op eratio ns; t her efor e, she was not aware o f the technical intricaci es of the laws. In such ci rcumstances , she accept ed t he sal e consideratio n i n whatev er form it was give n to he r by the vendor. This constitutes s ufficie nt cause for not levy of the penalty.
5.It may be noted here that no satisfacti on regardi ng initiati on o f penalty pr oceedi ngs was rec orde d i n the assessment order. It is submitted that it was essential to do so in t he light of decision i n the case of Commissi o ner of Income Tax, Panchkula vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, Ambala City, (2015) 379 ITR 521 (SC) (PB 24-26), The fac ts of the case are that the ass essme nt proc eedi ngs were initiated on the i nformati on t hat the assessee is engaged lar ge scale purchase and sale of wheat, but was not filing the ret urn of i nc ome. Whil e frami ng the assessment the assessi ng office r not ed tha t the assess ee has contravened provisions of section 269SS. Therefore , he was satisfied tha t penalty proceedings u/s -271E have to be initiate d. The commissi oner of income tax (appeal) set aside this assessment or der directi ng the A0 'to frame assessment De -novo. The assessi ng offi cer pass ed fres h assessment order. But i n t his assess ment no satisfacti on u/s 2 71E was recorded. On the basis of ori gi nal assessment penalty order was al so passed. The tribunal as well as hi gh court held that when ori gi nal assessment order was Its elf set -aside, t he satisfacti on recor de d the rei n for the purpos e of section 271E would also not survi ve. Ther efor e, t he penalty was canc elled. The Hon'ble court held t hat i n so far as fres h assess ment is concer ned, there was no satisfacti on recorded i n r espect of penalty proc eedi ngs u/s 271E, though in that order the ass essi ng officer wanted penalty proceedi ngs t o be i nitiated-u/ s 271(1)(c), Thus, in as far as order u/s 271E is concer ned;, it was wit hout satisfactio n a nd t herefor e, no s uch penal ty could be l evi ed. The facts of the c as e of our ass ess ee ar e i n pari -mater ia wit h the facts regardi ng the fresh assessment, i n which, no satisfacti on for i nitiati ng penalty was rec orded (PB 5-11), The refore, the pe nalty order in this case als o is without satisfactio n and the refo re, followi ng t he decisi on of Hon'ble Supreme Court, pe nalty i n this case cannot be levied. The same may ki ndly be del eted.
5.1In the cas e of CIT vs. Ma khi ja C ons tr uc tio n, (2002) 257 ITR 0008, High Cour t of Ma dhya Pradesh (PB 27-29), the facts a re t hat penalty u/s 271B of the Act was levied on the assess ee, The tribunal found tha t though the l oans were acce pted thr ough cross ed cheques i nst ead of cross ed account payee assessee, the sam e were de posited i n the account of t he assessee-fir m through banki ng c hannels. The bank had also issue d a ce rti ficat e that the t rans acti ons were as per banki ng norms. The t ribunal held t hat t he penalty could not have been i mpos ed for minor deviati on as the tra nsactio ns appear to be genui ne, proper and bona-fide. It has been held that the appeal of t he rev enue was rej ected mer ely on the gr ound that t he cheques wer e crossed and they we re deposited in t he acco unt of the assess ee-firm. Conse quently and i n t he res ul t provisions of sectio n 269SS co ul d not be attrac ted . A further r ece ding has bee n m ade that t he bank has clarifi ed t hat all 6 amounts have been shown in the acc ount of the ass ess ee and t hat they were as per banki ng nor ms. In view of the aforesaid fi ndi ngs, there is no merit and s ubstance i n t his appeal. The facts of t he case of our ass essee are similar to t he facts of the case of Mukhij a Constr uctions. The assessee had i nter-alia r ecei ved 2 sums aggrega ti ng to Rs. 75,00,000/- as part of sal e considerati on in cash (PB 16). The cash was accept ed i n i gnorance of the position of the tec hnical law in this matter. Ho wever, the cash was d eposi ted in the bank acco unt (PB 21). There is no fi ndi ng tha t the tra nsac tion was not ge nui ne or that it was sham to cover t he unacc ounted money. Therefore , the decision is applicabl e to the facts of the cas e.
5.2In t he case OT vs. Bbagwati Pr asad Baj oria (HUF), (2003) 263 ITR 0487 High Court of Gauhati (PB 30-35), the facts of the case are that pe nalty u/s 2710 was levi ed on the assessee for co ntravention of section 269SS. T he Ho n'bl e court was of the vi ew that whil e it could not be said that the provisionsof sec ti on 269SS is ultra-virus: of the consti tution, but if the court fi nds that t here was a reasona ble and s ufficie nt cause for not imposi ng penalty, then it is not to be levied. The facts wer e that the impugned transacti on of loan found place in t he boo ks of the assessee as well as the lender. There was no fi ndi ng that t he tr ansaction was not genui ne or that it w as a sham tr ansaction to cover up unaccounted mo ney. The tr ansaction is al so refl ecte d i n the pro missory note execut ed, by the assess ee i n favo ur o f the l ender. Thus, the element of mens -rea is not borne out from the nature and the manner i n whic h trans acti on was carri ed out In paragraph no. 7 of the order, t he Ho n'bl e hi gh court held that keepi ng in view the obj ect of int roduci ng the secti on 269SS, the l egislatur e has given discr etion to the assessi ng authority u/s 273B to levy die penalt y u/s 271D or not. Under sec ti on 273B if the courts find that there was a reaso nable and sufficient cause for not imposi ng the penalty on t he assessee on the then facts and circ umstanc es, t he penalty s hall not be levied. The Hon'ble court referred to the facts of t he case that t he loan was r ecor ded i n the books of both the parties, t here is no fi ndi ng t hat the loan was not. genui ne and it was a sham tr ansaction to cove r up unaccounted money. It appeal's that the ass esse e felt need of m oney and appr oached t he m oney l ender for advancement of money. The transaction is r eflect ed i n promisso ry no te execut ed i n fav our o f t he l e nder . To satisfy t he immediate requi re ment of the money, a pers on no rmal appr oaches a money lender, his friend or r elativ e who could lend mone y t o him t o sati sfy his immedi at e requirement . In these ci rcumsta nces, it ca nnot b e said tha t the assessee has ent ered in to the transaction to avoid payment of tax . The element of mes -rea is not borne out fr om the facts of the case. In thes e circumstances, t he tribunal was jus tified i n upholdi ng judgment of CIT(A) in del eti ng the penalty. The facts of our case are si milar to the fac ts of this case i n s o far as pri ncipl es guidi ng l evy of penalty ar e c oncerned. In our assesse e's case also t he m oney was recorded in die sale deed (PB16) and ther eafter, the money was deposited i n the bank acc ount (PB 21). Thes e circumstances show t hat there was no question of ev adi ng t ax as the full consideration shown i n t he ret urn. T here is no mes-rea and thus, no penalty ought to have been levied i n thi s case.
In the case of Assistant Dir ect or of Inspection (Investi gation) v s. Kum. A .B. S hanthi (2002) 255 ITR 0258 (SC) (PB 36-45), t wo ques tions were i nvolved regardi ng constitutional, validity of section 269SS and also merits o f levy of pe nalty. We are concerned with observati ons of the last page of the report t hat i t is important to no te t hat another provision, s ecti on 273B, was also inc orporated which provides that not withstandi ng contai ned i n provisions of sec tion 27 ID , no penalty shall be imposable on the person or t he assessee, as t he case maybe, for any fail ur e referred to i n the s aid provision, if he pr oves that ther e was reasonable caus e for s uc h fail ure and i f t he assessee prov es that ther e was reasonabl e caus e for failur e to ta ke a loan other wise than account payee cheque or acco unt-payee de mand draft then the pe nalty may not be l evi ed. Therefore, undue hards hip is very much mitigated by i ncl usi on of s ecti on 273B. If there was a genui ne and bona-fide transacti on and if for any reason t he taxpayer coul d not get t he l oan or deposit by account-pa yee cheque or demand draft for s ome bona-fide reasons, the aut hority vest ed wit h t he power to i mp ose pe nalty has got discretiona ry power. The sum and substance is that if t he transac tion is bona-fide and there i s som e reasonabl e caus e f or contraventio n of secti on 269SS, t hen penalty need not be le vied by invoking discr eti on of t he autho rity. It is submitt ed that t he instant case is an emine nt case f or invoki ng t his discreti onar y power as there has been no attempt to evade tax and t he bona-fide of t he assessee are beyo nd doubt The mens -rea is also nonexist ent. The only r eason to accept cash fro m t he ve ndor as lac k of k nowl edge which on fact s and circumstances co nstitutes reas onable caus e.
Fi nall y, we may rely on the case of Hi ndustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC ) (PB 46-52). It ha s been held that an order imposi ng penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obli ga tion is the result o f a quasi-c rimi nal pr oce edi ng, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unl ess the party eit her act ed deli ber at ely i n defianc e of law o r was guilty of conduct, cont umaci ous or dishonest o r act ed in conscious disregar d of his obli gation. Penalt y will also not be imposed merely becaus e it is lawful t o do so. The le vy of pe nalty is a matter of discreti on o f t he aut hority to be exerci sed j udi ciall y a nd on a consideratio n of al l releva nt circ umstanc es . This cas e sums up the who le situati on r egarding l evy or non-levy of penalty. Just beca use it is permissible to le vy penalty, it is not necessary t hat the penalt y be levied unl ess it is shown that the party ac ted deliberat el y i n defianc e of law or consciously disregar ded his duty. In our case, the questio n o f defiance of law does not arise at all. F ur ther, there is no del iberate dereliction of duty. The def ault occ urred due to ignoranc e o f la w. Ther e is no cont umacious conduct or any mala-fide . Ther efore, i t is request ed t hat the penal ty may be del eted.
In res ult it is prayed t hat the appeal of t he assessee may be allowed.”
I have considered the fact s of the case, pe nalty order , appellant’s writ ten s ubmi ssio ns and cas e-laws reli ed on by the appel lant. In t he i nstant case, t he moot question for determi nation is whe ther the assess ee ha d committed any default wi thin the meani ng of provisi ons of s ec. 269SS by accepti ng cas h agai ns t selling of immovable prop erty from buyers. In the written s ubmissions upl oaded, the appellant has submitted that s he stayed in village Ramgarh, Bads hapur, Gur ugram Haryana, was enga ged in agricult ural activities and was not fully conversant wit h all technicalities of law, i ncl udi ng the provisions of secti on 269SS and section 27 ID o f the Act. The appellant further s ubmitted that she had declared sale c onsiderati on of Rs 2.80 crore and the sale deed itself showed t wo cash r eceipts of Rs. 32,00,000/- and Rs. 43,00,000/- on 30.08.2016 and 22.08.2016 whic h establ is hed the fact that the amount was deposited i n the bank account a nd there was no inte ntion whatsoever for ev adi ng tax. The appellant referred t o Explanatory Memorandum o f Financ e Act 2015 (PB 22-23) and vari ous case-laws to ar gue that if the default occurred due to ignora nce of law and there is no c ontumacious c onduct or any mala-fide, no penalty u/s .271D is leviable. Consideri ng the facts of the case, I am i nclined to agr ee with t he appellant’s claim. T he AO levied penalt y u/s. 269SS which states t hat if the aggre gate amount of such rec eipt of loans / deposits , ‘sp ecifi ed sum’ exc eeds prescribed l imit, penalty is l eviabl e. Howev er, penalty is not leviable i n case whereas the assessee’s explains reasonable cause for s uch contra ventio n. In t he i nstant c ase, from the facts narrated by t he appellant it is seen that the app ellant bei ng an agric ulturist stayi ng i n a vi llage di d not have knowl edge of tax laws a nd further the sale considerati o n received in cash was deposited in he r bank account. Here, I may ref er to t he decis ion of the Hon’ble ITAT B angalore ‘C’ Bench i n the case of S mt. Pus hpalat ha vs. ITO [20 24] 165 taxmann. com 767 (Bangalor e - Trib.) wherei n t he Ho n’bl e Trib unal held that where assessee sold a prop erty and re ceiv ed certai n cash as part of s ale consideratio n, si nce amendme nt effected by Fi nanc e Act, 2015, t o s ec tion 269SS, whi ch had laid a restriction for rec eiving cash for trans fer of immovabl e propert y would not have come t o knowledge of assesse e who was a woma n having el ementar y education a nd no knowled ge of tax laws, there was reasonabl e caus e as mandated under section 273B for failure to comply with section 269SS and, therefore, penalty under secti on 271D upon assessee was not warrant ed. Further, I may mention that the appellant furnished all rel evant doc uments r elati ng t o pr opert y transaction whic h cer tai nly proves that t here was no malafide inte nti on to hide or evade ta x on s uch tra nsactio n. The Ho n’bl e ITAT VISA KHAPATNA M B ENCH in t he c as e of S mt. Vijapurapu Sudha Rao vs. ITO [2023] 157 taxma nn.com 669 (Visakhapatnam - Tri b.) held that penalty l evi ed u/s. 271D after no tici ng t he AO failed to consider assess ee’s tha t assess ee's sale of property was a dist ress sal e and under these circumstances, assessee sold property at lower pric e and he acc epted c ons iderati on as paid by buyer, furthe r si nce cash received by as sessee had been deposited by assessee into bank account, t her e was no suppression of cash r ecei pts by as sessee. H ead no te is reproduc ed as under:-
“Levy of penalty u/s 271D - Cash transactio n i n connecti on wi th violation of section 269SS -reasonable ca use - Sale o f residential flats t o an agric ulturist - cash sal e c onsiderati on is very much reflected i n the R egistered Sal e Deed as execut ed by the Purchas er - Levy of penalty is discre tionary and not automatic - A careful readi ng of S ec ti on 273B enc ompass es that c ert ai n penalti es “shall” not be imposed i n cas es where “reasonabl e cause” i s succ essfully pleaded. - No penalty (S ourc e 2023 (7) TMI 271 - AT - Inc ome Tax)” Consideri ng the facts a nd circumsta nces of the c ase, legal positi on and judicial pr ecedents di scuss ed above, it is held that t he AO is not j ustifi ed in levyi ng penalty of Rs. 75,00,000/- u/s. 271D of t he Ac t, t he same is del eted. Gro unds raised by t he appellant regarding this issue are allo wed. 7. In the res ul t, t he appeal is allowe d.”
We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. DR at the very outset submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has committed illegality by deleting the pe nalty u/s 271D o f the Act as the assessee has failed to show any sufficient cause for accepting the cash receipts against part consideratio n though mentio ned in the sale deed itself, but the assessee has violated section 269SS of the Act, therefore , the ld. Assessing Officer has rightly imposed the penalty. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and penalty need to be revived.
The ld. AR on the o ther hand while relying upon the judgme nt of the ld. C IT(A) would submit that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the perfectly legal and justified order and has also relied upon various legal preced ents. It is further submitted that the assessee was successful in satisfying that there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee to accept the part consideration in cash and the same w as deposited with the bank and co nfirmation was filed before the ld. CIT(A) from the bank in the form of bank stateme nt. It is further submitted that the assessee has not hidden anything so as to escape from the imposing of the legal and justified tax and once the factum of receiving part cash consideration was mentioned in sale deed, no provision of law is supposed to have been violated and there was no contravention of section 269SS of the Act on the part of the assessee.
We have noticed that the assessee before the ld. C IT(A) has relied upon section 273B of the Act w hich provides that no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the asse ssee u/s 271D, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provision if he proves that there was reaso nable cause for the said failure . The ld . CIT(A) has considered all the facts & circumstances and the explanation given by the assessee and the fact that the amount of part consideration of Rs.75,00,000/- received in cash is categorically mentioned in the document registered by the Registrar and that is part of the sale deed and the said amount was immediately deposited in the bank account of the asse ssee which was also confirmed by the bank statement. Thus, the ld. C IT(A) rightly found that it was not a case for imposing the penalty u/s 271D of the Act because there was sufficient explanation for not following the law in violation of which the cash consideration had been received. For these reaso ns, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT( A) is perfe ctly legal and justifie d and is well reasoned and we do not find any perversity or ille gality in the same and accord ingly uphold the deletion of the penalty by the ld. CIT(A). We accordingly confirm the impugned order passed by the ld . CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.