In appeal, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271D of the I.T. 271D of the Act was passed on levying a penalty of Rs. 271D were initiated for violating the provisions of Section 269SS and penalty order u/s. 20,000/- as per the Section 269SS of the IT Act, penalty proceedings u/s. As the cash received in connection with sale of immovable property was more than the specified limit of Rs. 40,00,000/- as his share with respect to sale of immovable property. Subsequently, the assessee agreed to have received cash of Rs. on 2,00,00,000/- on behalf of 5 sellers including the assessee. Sampath Rao was recorded during the course of search and he had stated to have received cash of Rs.
The assessee is one of the 5 sellers mentioned therein. Sampath Rao on 25-07-2018 on behalf of 5 sellers of an immovable property located at Bondugula Village. 2,00,00,000/- was noted to have been received by Sri J. As per the page no., 4 of Annexure A/NRR/01, cash of Rs. The Assessing Officer observed that during the course of search operation in the residence of the appellant, certain loose sheets were found and seized. Act were issued and served on the assessee to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and furnished the requisite details. The assessee filed his return of income on for the A.Y under consideration on admitting total income of Rs.1,46,37,210/- and agriculture income of Rs.12,05,000/. Act, 1961 was conducted along with the group cases of M/s. A search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Since identical grounds have been raised in these two appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.įacts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from business or profession and income from other sources. The above two appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the separate orders dated of the learned CIT (A)-11, Hyderabad, relating to A.Y.2019-20. In the absence of satisfaction in the Assessment Order, the penalty under 271D is eliminated Fact and issue of the case
0 kommentar(er)
