Mandeep Kaur Vs. The J.C.I.T

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Mandeep Kaur, sold immovable property and received consideration partly in cash amounting to Rs. 67 lakhs out of a total consideration of Rs. 82 lakhs. No assessment was made, but a penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was initiated by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer issued a reference to the JCIT on 31.07.2019, and the JCIT issued a show cause notice on 01.08.2019, passing the penalty order on 28.02.2020. The assessee challenged the imposition of the penalty before the NFAC, which confirmed the JCIT’s decision. The assessee further appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the penalty was time-barred.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the penalty imposed is time-barred under section 275(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
• 2. Whether the penalty is time-barred as the demand notice was not submitted along with the penalty order.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren vs. Addl.CIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19Allowed

• Shashi Bhushan Gupta vs. JCIT

  Delhi Bench ‘G’ benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Sapna Jain vs JCIT Range-63

• Vidhi Pragnesh Modi vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench

• Raju Siddaiah vs. ITO

  C'' Bench: Bangalore benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Mr. Nateshan Sampath vs. DCIT

  C’’ Bench: Bangalore benchAY 2018-19Allowed