I received the sale price of my land in cash across the table at the sub-registrar's office. Is that a 'specified sum' under s.269SS?
The Hyderabad Bench held it is not. On its consistent view, cash received for the transfer of immovable property at the time of registration of the sale deed, where the receipt is recorded in the registered deed itself, does not fall within the mischief of s.269SS and does not attract s.271D. The Tribunal also set the penalty aside on the separate ground that no satisfaction had been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order.
Decided by the ITAT (Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President and Manjunatha G., Accountant Member) on 2026-04-30, reported as ITA No.2317/Hyd./2025; Assessment Year 2017-18; Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'B' Bench. It bears on section 269SS, section 271D, section 274, section 269T, section 271E of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Cash Transaction Limits, Penalty and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
This is a contested proposition and it must be used with the amendment in view. Until 1 June 2015 s.269SS reached only a loan or deposit, and a receipt of sale consideration was plainly outside it. The Finance Act 2015 inserted 'specified sum', defined in the Explanation as any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer of an immovable property, whether or not the transfer takes place. On that text the Department's position — argued and recorded in DCIT v. Jayapriya Company — is that the words 'or otherwise' catch the final payment as much as an advance. The Hyderabad Bench reads the amendment as aimed at advances only, relying on the Finance Minister's budget speech, and holds that a payment made in one go before the sub-registrar at registration is outside it. The year here is 2017-18, well after the amendment, so this is not a decision on the old text. Treat it as an available and repeatedly applied Tribunal view, not as settled law: the Pune Bench in MCM Developers recorded at paras 19 and 20 that on the authority of Birmala Projects and RBANMS cash consideration above Rs 2,00,000 for immovable property does contravene s.269ST, which is a different section but the same conduct, and s.269ST has no threshold exception for registration.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee received sale consideration in cash on the transfer of immovable properties. The amounts were recorded in the registered sale deeds and the cash was paid in one go before the sub-registrar at the time of registration. A penalty under s.271D was levied on the footing that the receipts violated s.269SS. The assessment year is 2017-18, so the receipts fall after the Finance Act 2015 inserted 'specified sum' into s.269SS with effect from 1 June 2015. The assessee also contended that the Assessing Officer had not recorded satisfaction in the assessment order.
The appeal was allowed and the penalty deleted. Following its own consistent earlier decisions, the Tribunal held that cash received against the transfer of immovable properties duly mentioned in the registered sale deeds does not fall within the mischief of s.269SS and consequently does not attract the penalty under s.271D (paras 5 and 5.1). It separately held the penalty invalid for want of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order.
The Tribunal reasoned from the object of the provisions and from the legislative history of the 2015 amendment. Sections 269SS and 269T were inserted to remove the mischief of tax evasion in cash transactions (para 5). The amendment brought in by the Finance Act 2015 was directed at curbing the generation of black money in real estate by prohibiting acceptance or repayment of an advance in cash, the corresponding change to s.269T introducing 'specified advance' defined as any sum of money in the nature of an advance, by whatever name called, in relation to transfer of an immovable property whether or not the transfer takes place. Reading the Explanation to s.269SS against that background, the Tribunal took the view that the provision applies to advances receivable and does not extend to the transaction that happens at the time of the final payment at registration of the sale deed before the sub-registrar. On the second ground it applied the requirement, as stated by the Telangana High Court in Srinivas Reddy Reddeppagari v. JCIT, that satisfaction be recorded by the Assessing Officer notwithstanding that the Joint Commissioner imposes the penalty.
we hold that the transaction of cash received against the transfer of the immovable properties duly mentioned in the registered sale deeds will not fall in the mischief of sec.269SS of the Act and consequently, will not attract the penalty u/sec.271D of the Act.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppThe Hyderabad Bench held it is not. On its consistent view, cash received for the transfer of immovable property at the time of registration of the sale deed, where the receipt is recorded in the registered deed itself, does not fall within the mischief of s.269SS and does not attract s.271D. The Tribunal also set the penalty aside on the separate ground that no satisfaction had been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. This was decided by the ITAT (Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President and Manjunatha G., Accountant Member) and bears on section 269SS, section 271D, section 274, section 269T, section 271E of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No.2317/Hyd./2025; Assessment Year 2017-18; Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'B' Bench. This is a contested proposition and it must be used with the amendment in view. Until 1 June 2015 s.269SS reached only a loan or deposit, and a receipt of sale consideration was plainly outside it. The Finance Act 2015 inserted 'specified sum', defined in the Explanation as any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer of an immovable property, whether or not the transfer takes place. On that text the Department's position — argued and recorded in DCIT v. Jayapriya Company — is that the words 'or otherwise' catch the final payment as much as an advance. The Hyderabad Bench reads the amendment as aimed at advances only, relying on the Finance Minister's budget speech, and holds that a payment made in one go before the sub-registrar at registration is outside it. The year here is 2017-18, well after the amendment, so this is not a decision on the old text. Treat it as an available and repeatedly applied Tribunal view, not as settled law: the Pune Bench in MCM Developers recorded at paras 19 and 20 that on the authority of Birmala Projects and RBANMS cash consideration above Rs 2,00,000 for immovable property does contravene s.269ST, which is a different section but the same conduct, and s.269ST has no threshold exception for registration. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Date the transaction first: for a receipt before 1 June 2015, s.269SS did not reach a property receipt at all and the defence is complete; for a receipt after that date, you are arguing the scope of 'specified sum'.
The assessee received sale consideration in cash on the transfer of immovable properties. The amounts were recorded in the registered sale deeds and the cash was paid in one go before the sub-registrar at the time of registration. A penalty under s.271D was levied on the footing that the receipts violated s.269SS. The assessment year is 2017-18, so the receipts fall after the Finance Act 2015 inserted 'specified sum' into s.269SS with effect from 1 June 2015. The assessee also contended that the Assessing Officer had not recorded satisfaction in the assessment order. The matter was decided on 2026-04-30 by the ITAT (Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President and Manjunatha G., Accountant Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was allowed and the penalty deleted. Following its own consistent earlier decisions, the Tribunal held that cash received against the transfer of immovable properties duly mentioned in the registered sale deeds does not fall within the mischief of s.269SS and consequently does not attract the penalty under s.271D (paras 5 and 5.1). It separately held the penalty invalid for want of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order.
The Tribunal reasoned from the object of the provisions and from the legislative history of the 2015 amendment. Sections 269SS and 269T were inserted to remove the mischief of tax evasion in cash transactions (para 5). The amendment brought in by the Finance Act 2015 was directed at curbing the generation of black money in real estate by prohibiting acceptance or repayment of an advance in cash, the corresponding change to s.269T introducing 'specified advance' defined as any sum of money in the nature of an advance, by whatever name called, in relation to transfer of an immovable property whether or not the transfer takes place. Reading the Explanation to s.269SS against that background, the Tribunal took the view that the provision applies to advances receivable and does not extend to the transaction that happens at the time of the final payment at registration of the sale deed before the sub-registrar. On the second ground it applied the requirement, as stated by the Telangana High Court in Srinivas Reddy Reddeppagari v. JCIT, that satisfaction be recorded by the Assessing Officer notwithstanding that the Joint Commissioner imposes the penalty. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "we hold that the transaction of cash received against the transfer of the immovable properties duly mentioned in the registered sale deeds will not fall in the mischief of sec.269SS of the Act and consequently, will not attract the penalty u/sec.271D of the Act." The decision followed or applied Srinivas Reddy Reddeppagari v. JCIT (Telangana High Court) — applied on the requirement of recorded satisfaction; Earlier coordinate-bench decisions of the Hyderabad Bench on cash received at registration — followed.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-04-30 and is reported as ITA No.2317/Hyd./2025; Assessment Year 2017-18; Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'B' Bench. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 269SS, section 271D, section 274, section 269T, section 271E, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was allowed and the penalty deleted. Following its own consistent earlier decisions, the Tribunal held that cash received against the transfer of immovable properties duly mentioned in the registered sale deeds does not fall within the mischief of s.269SS and consequently does not attract the penalty under s.271D (paras 5 and 5.1). It separately held the penalty invalid for want of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. It arises in Cash Transaction Limits, Penalty and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 269SS, section 271D, section 274, section 269T, section 271E of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President and Manjunatha G., Accountant Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Show that the cash was paid in one go before the sub-registrar at registration and that the registered sale deed itself records the amount and the mode — that is the fact this line of decisions turns on. Do not stop at s.269SS. Test the same receipt against s.269ST, which bars receiving Rs 2,00,000 or more from a person in respect of a single transaction and which the courts have applied to cash consideration for immovable property. Take the jurisdictional ground in parallel: check whether the Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction in the assessment order, and whether the Joint Commissioner imposed the penalty. Expect the Revenue to rely on the words 'whether as advance or otherwise' in the Explanation to s.269SS, and be ready with the legislative-history material the Tribunal used.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. The citator search (doc 45241518, confirmed as 'Mohammed Shabbir Bhojani, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad on 30 April, 2026') returns nothing. A second probe surfaced one later order that names it - Velji Parsotambhai Gohel v ITO, Ward-1(2)(1) (ITAT Rajkot, 29 June 2026) - and that order was opened and read. It is not an application. Bhojani appears only in the assessee's counsel's list of relied-upon decisions ('1. Hyderabad ITAT: Mohammed Shabbir Bhojani, 2317/Hyd/2025 dated 30.04.2026') and is never discussed; the Rajkot Bench deleted the s.271D penalty on Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (Supreme Court) and Parivar Television (Gujarat High Court) instead. The s.269SS holding on cash received at registration of a sale deed therefore remains uncited in substance. The three Telangana High Court matters in this assessee's name (2022 and 1 July 2025) all pre-date the order. Nothing overruling, doubting or distinguishing it was found, and no appeal to a High Court against it is disclosed on the record searched. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
Paragraphs 5 and 5.1 were seen verbatim and paragraph 5.1 was confirmed word for word on a second, independent pass. The order draws heavily on material reproduced from other sources — the Memorandum and Notes on Clauses to the Finance Bill 2015 (including the passage numbered 54.4 on the amendment to s.269T and 'specified advance'), an earlier coordinate-bench order which is quoted at length and which ends with 'Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed', and paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Telangana High Court in Srinivas Reddy Reddeppagari v. JCIT on the pari materia character of ss.271D and 271E. Those quoted passages are not this Tribunal's own words and the numbered paragraphs inside them are the source document's numbering, not this order's. The penalty amount of Rs 36,00,000 and the second holding on absence of recorded satisfaction come from a rendering I could not reproduce verbatim on a second pass; the holding on s.269SS is the one that was verified. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed and the penalty deleted. Following its own consistent earlier decisions, the Tribunal held that cash received against the transfer of immovable properties duly mentioned in the registered sale deeds does not fall within the mischief of s.269SS and consequently does not attract the penalty under s.271D (paras 5 and 5.1). It separately held the penalty invalid for want of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order.
TaxSphere, “Mohammed Shabbir Bhojani v ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/mohammed-shabbir-bhojani-269ss-cash-at-registration-of-sale-deed/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I took and repaid small cash loans from my family's sister concern, all recorded in the books. Must penalty follow automatically under sections 271D and 271E?
My assessment order says penalty under sections 271D and 271E is initiated. The Joint Commissioner issued his notice months later and passed the penalty order after that. Does time run from the assessment order or from his notice?
Our credit society takes and repays members' money in cash across the counter like a bank. The officer has levied penalty under sections 271D and 271E on the whole turnover. Can it stand?
Our credit society takes deposits and repays loans in cash to members. Can the department levy 271D and 271E on the whole amount?
