Hans Raj vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Hans Raj, transferred a residential house to his mother-in-law, Smt. Chander Kala, without any financial transaction. The property was originally purchased by Hans Raj's father-in-law, with part of the purchase consideration sourced through a loan taken by Hans Raj from Punjab National Bank. In 2016, the property was transferred to Smt. Chander Kala. The sale deed erroneously mentioned a cash consideration of Rs. 24,21,000/-. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for accepting cash as consideration. Hans Raj contended that no cash was exchanged and the mention of cash in the sale deed was a mistake.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
• 2. Whether the penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Abbayi Sunkara vs. Income Tax Officer

  Visakhapatnam bench

• Material Research Instruments Vs. ACIT-Circle 16(2), Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2006-07Partly Allowed

• Smt. Ramadevi Nama vs. Income Tax Officer

  Hyderabad bench

• Vishal Bhutani v. ACIT, Central Circle-3 & ITO, Ward-1

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2019-20Partly Allowed

• Smt. Bharti Sharma vs. Dy. CIT and Sh. Pankaj Sharma vs. Dy. CIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2021-22Allowed

• Mandeep Kaur Vs. The J.C.I.T

  DELHI ‘E’ BENCH benchAY 2017-18Allowed