When Law Specifies Authority, Others Cannot Act: ITAT Cancels 271D Penalty:

ITAT quashes the Section 271D penalty, as it was imposed by the AO instead of the Joint Commissioner, who alone had authority before April 1, 2025.
ITAT Quashes Penalty Imposed Without Jurisdiction
Table of Contents

When Law Specifies Authority, Others Cannot Act: ITAT Cancels 271D Penalty
The Tribunal agreed with the appeal and said that the penalty under Section 271D imposed by the AO before April 01, 2025, was not valid because only the Joint Commissioner had the power to impose such a penalty at that time.
Sonal Lal filed the present case against the ITO ward, challenging the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 11/08/2025.
Background of the case
The case arose after the assessee and his brother sold an immovable property for Rs 16 lakh. The assessee's share was Rs 8 lakh. During reassessment, the AO accepted the capital gains declared by the assessee. However, the AO further noticed that the assessee had received Rs 1.50 lakh in cash from the sale consideration. As a result, AO treated the transaction as a violation of Section 269SS and imposed a penalty of Rs 1.50 lakh under Section 271D on September 16, 2024. The assessee then challenged the penalty before the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed. The assessee then approached the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the AR argued that, under Section 271D(2), only the Joint Commissioner of Income Taxes (JCIT) is authorised to impose such a penalty. In this case, the penalty was imposed by the AO, not by the Joint Commissioner.Tribunal's Ruling
After hearing both sides, the Tribunal observed that until April 1, 2025, the power to levy a penalty under Section 271D rested only with the Joint Commissioner. Since the penalty in this case was imposed on September 16, 2024 (before April 01, 2025), it should have been imposed by the JCIT and not by the AO; the penalty order was invalid. The Tribunal stated that "When the law mandates any act to be done by a specified authority, the same must be done by that specified authority only." As a result, it allowed the assessee's appeal.About Author
Vanshika verma
Content Writer
Vanshika Verma is a Content Writer with 1+ year of experience at Studycafe.in. A B.Com graduate from Delhi University, She writes articles on Finance, Tax, ICAI, GST, and the latest financial news, with a focus on making complex topics easy for readers and professionals.
Vanshika Verma is a Content Writer with 1+ year of experience at Studycafe.in. A B.Com graduate from Delhi University, She writes articles on Finance, Tax, ICAI, GST, and the latest financial news, with a focus on making complex topics easy for readers and professionals.
Studycafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2187My Recent Articles
- What Can You Trade During Muhurat Trading 2026? Stocks, ETFs, F&O and MTF Explained
- Bharti Airtel Receives Rs 1.07 Lakh Penalty Notice From DoT Maharashtra Over Alleged Subscriber Verification Violations
- Rashi Peripherals Faces Rs 2.15 Crore Customs Duty and Penalty Demand Over Alleged Misclassification of Imported Goods, Considers CESTAT Appeal
- High-Profile Birthday Party at Rajkot's Saraza Hotel Raided by LCB; Prominent Industrialists and Business Leaders Under Scanner
- CBI Academy Hosts One-Week International ITEC Training Programme to Enhance Skills in Anti-Corruption Investigation and Recovery of Illicit Assets
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Tags
Recent Posts
All Posts








