AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.11.2025 of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment order dated 27/06/2025 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 271D of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The assessee has purchased a property along with two others wherefrom it revealed that Rs.7 lakh cash was paid one-third of which was paid by the assessee the source whereof was directed to be furnished by the Ld. AO. The assessee has not been able to furnish any document in support of the source of cash so paid as part of the consideration, hence, the same was added in the hands of the assessee and further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority in the absence of any evidence adduced by the assessee in support of the source of the same. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act and imposed a penalty of Rs.2,33,333/- (1/3rd of Rs.7,00,000/-)in relation to transfer of an immovable property otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO observing as under:-
“4.9I have gone through the penalty order u/s. 271D passed by the Assessing Officer. The penalty pertains to receipt of more than 2 lakh cash by the appellant. This was found on the basis of sale deed in which appellant has sold property and received cash in lieu of it, which is Rs. 2,33,333/-. The appellant ha snot made any submission before me and she has not submitted any explanation before the Assessing Officer. It means that the appellant has no submission to make in support of her grounds of appeal. I find no infirmity in the order of the AO who has rightly levied penalty u/s. 271D as appellant received more than 2 lakh cash.
4.10In the light of the above discussion, I find that the assessee has not made any submission before me and consequently has failed to bring on record any clarification. The penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271D is in accordance with law and based on valid material. I, therefore, uphold the penalty of 2,33,333/–.
5.Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed and the order of the Assessing Officer is confirmed.”
Even before us, no assistance has been rendered neither any document in support of the claim of the assessee has been filed so as to justify the source of the impugned penalty which was paid in cash by the assessee during the purchase of the property. Hence, the order passed by the authorities below in our considered opinion is found to be just and proper so as not to warrant any interference.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.