BHAVNA JAIN,HANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, HISAR

Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

The Revenue vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly levied the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty(ies) in the & 1033/Del/2025 Bhavna Jain assessee’s hands based on the various quantum additions made in the twin assessments framed in her case during a survey conducted on 02.09.2014. It could hardly dispute the clinching fact that almost all the impugned quantum addition mainly involves subjective issues of unsecured loans, trade turnover etc. wherein the assessee filed her evidence inter alia explaining the source thereof etc. which stood rejected in the course of assessment.

That being the clinching identical factual position emerging from the case file, I hereby quote CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) to conclude that each and every quantum addition would not ipso facto involve the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The impugned penalty forming subject matter of adjudication in both these assessment years are hereby deleted.

These assessee’s twin appeals & 1033/Del/2025 are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13/05/2025.