RAJENDRA DAGA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(3), JPR, JAIPUR.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 141/JPR/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Rajendra Daga Vs. ITO Neelamgiri Garden, Ajmer Ward 1(3) Road, Opp. Baldev Plaza, Jaipur S.O. Jaipur 302006 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AELPD 0669 M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Rohan Sogani, CA (thru. V.C.) Respondent by : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, JCIT Date of Hearing 14.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.07.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 26.11.2025 in appellate proceedings, relating to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dismissing assessee’s appeal on account of delay in filing of the same.

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 141/JPR/2026 Rajendra Daga 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)/NFAC (National Faceless Appeal Centre) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. The action of Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the oder Passed by Id. CIT(A)/NFAC. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in levying penalty of Rs. 11,55,103, u/s 271(1)(c), without considering the fact that the assessee had opted for Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme under DTVSV Act, 2020. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the penalty of Rs. 11,55, 103. 3. The assessee craves his rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing. 3. The issue for adjudication before me is the levy of penalty on the assessee for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)© of the Act. 4. The facts on record reveal that the assessee’s dispute in quantum proceedings stood resolved under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.Copy of Form No.5,being order of full and final settlement of tax arrears u/s 5(2) r.w.s 6 of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, was placed before me. It was also pointed out that, as per Section 5 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, the assessee was granted immunity from the imposition of penalty after having settled its dispute under the said Scheme. The provisions of Section 5 of the DTVSV Act, 2020 are reproduced hereunder:- ……… 5. Immunity from initiation of proceedings in respect of offence and imposition of penalty in certain cases

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 141/JPR/2026 Rajendra Daga Subject to the provisions of section 5, the designated authority shall not institute any proceeding in respect of an offence; or impose or levy any penalty; or charge any interest under the Income-tax Act in respect of tax arrear. ………. 5. The assessee having settled the dispute in quantum proceedings under the DTVSVS, 2020 and the said Act providing immunity to the settlors of dispute from the levy of penalty, I hold, that there was no case at all for levying penalty on the assessee for the impugned year. The order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive at all, and therefore needed to be quashed on account of the immunity granted by the DTVSV Act, 2020. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), though , I have noted from the order of the Ld.CIT(A),refused to admit assessee’s appeal on technical considerations of the delay in the filing of appeal before him despite being aware of the fact that the assessee had settled its case under DTVSVS ,2020.As an officer entrusted with the administration and execution of the Income Tax Act, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have quashed the penalty order passed. 7. The Ld.CIT(A) refused to admit assesses appeal for the technical consideration of delay in filing of the present appeal, that too when the assessee had clearly pointed out to him the reasons for the delay being on account of the fact that he believed no penalty would be levied after having settled his dispute in quantum proceedings but subsequently was surprised to know of the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, against which he perforce had to go in appeal before Ld. CIT(A).

P a g e | 4 ITA No. 141/JPR/2026 Rajendra Daga 8. The Legislature having enacted a Scheme for speedy disposal of disputes arising in Income Tax proceedings, all Authorities who have been tasked with enforcement of the Scheme are duty bound to do the same. 9. The AO, in the facts of the present case, ought to have withdrawn his order imposing penalty after the dispute of the assessee was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and even if the AO did not do so, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the said order. Both the Authorities have acted in gross violation of law, and in the process have caused grave injustice to the assessee, who was promised immunity from penalty, if his case was settled under the Scheme . 10. Having said so, I direct the quashing of the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the present case, since, admittedly, the assessee has settled his dispute in quantum proceedings under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and the said Act provides immunity from the levy of any penalty on having settled the dispute as per the said Scheme enacted by the Government. 11. In effect, the appeal of the assessee therefore, stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16.07.2026

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 16.07.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to:

P a g e | 5 ITA No. 141/JPR/2026 Rajendra Daga 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur