THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/95/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02041236202322 May 2025Author: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MUKESH RAJPUROHIT4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court found that the present appeals were identical to the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax versus Harish Jain & other connected matters, which had been decided by the same High Court on 03.03.2025. In that prior decision, the substantial question of law concerning the interference by the ITAT with the Section 263 order was answered against the revenue. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court answered the substantial question of law against the revenue and dismissed the appeals. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeals were disposed of based on the prior judgment.

What were the facts?

These appeals concern assessment years related to a search conducted on 07.09.2017 at the premises of Resonance Group, Kota. A notice under Section 153-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued to the respondent-assessee, Ram Kishan Verma, on 05.07.2018. The assessee filed a return declaring income of Rs. 71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs. 3,22,500/-. The assessment was finalized under Section 143(3) read with Section 153-A. The Assessing Officer (AO) recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271-AAB(1A) but initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The revisional authority, under Section 263, directed the AO to independently initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the revisional order, accepting the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in interfering with the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, holding that the present case was not one of an erroneous assessment order being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee relies on the decision of the High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax versus Harish Jain & other connected matters reported in [2025: RJ-JP;9218-DB], which dealt with an identical issue and answered the substantial question of law against the revenue. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) was not in a position to distinguish the present case from the cited decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 153-A,Section 143(3),Section 271-AAB(1A),Section 271(1)(c),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JP:21679-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 89/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central), Rajasthan , Fourth Floor, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Ram Kishan Verma, 33 A, Talwandi, Kota- 324005 (Pan/gir No. Addpk1093R) ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 88/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central), Rajasthan , Fourth Floor, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Ram Kishan Verma, 33 A, Talwandi, Kota-324005 (Pan/gir No. Addpk1093R) ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 90/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central), Rajasthan 4Th Floor, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus Ram Kishan Verma, 33 A, Talwandi, Kota-324005 (Pan/gir No. Addpk1093R) ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 94/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central) Rajasthan, 4Th Floor, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Marg, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Ram Kishan Verma, 33 -A, Talwandi, Kota-324005 (Pan/gir No. - Addpk1093R). [2025:RJ-JP:21679-DB] (2 of 4) [ITA-89/2023] ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 95/2023 The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central) Rajasthan, 4Th Floor, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Marg, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Manoj Kumar Sharma, 4 -G-20, Talwandi, Kota-324005 (Pan/gir No.-Afops0623J). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sarvesh Jain & Mr. Meyhul Mittal for Mr. Siddharth Bapna For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya with Mr. Tarak Ahuja, Mr. Hemang Gargieya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order 22/05/2025

1.

These appeals are decided by common order as the facts and issues involved are similar. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from DBITA No.89/2023. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order of Income Tax tribunal dated 25.11.2022 passed.

3.

The brief facts are that consequent to the search conducted on 07.09.2017 at the residential/business premises of Resonance Group, Kota, notice under section 153-A of the Act was issued on 05.07.2018 to the respondent-assessee (hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’). The assessee filed return declaring income of

[2025:RJ-JP:21679-DB] (3 of 4) [ITA-89/2023] Rs.71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs.3,22,500/-. The assessment was finalised vide order dated 30.12.2019 under section 143(3) read with 153-A of the Act. In the assessment order, the assessing officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) recorded satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271-AAB(1A) of the Act but initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The revisional authority under section 263 of the Act vide order dated 23.03.2022 directed the AO to initiate penalty Proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act after recording due satisfaction independently. The appeal of the assessee was accepted by the tribunal and revisional order was set aside.

4.

The appeal was admitted on 08.11.2023 on following substantial question of law:- (i) Whether the Ld. ITAT justified in interfering with the order passed under Section 263 of the I.T. Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax holding that present was not a case of an erroneous order of assessment being prejudicial to the interest of revenue?”

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the tribunal had decided appeals of the three assessees by a common order and one of them is the assessee. Relies upon order of this court dated 03.03.2025 titled as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax versus Harish Jain & other connected matters reported in [2025: RJ-JP;9218-DB], wherein the identical issue has been decided and the substantial question of law has been answered against the revenue.

6.

Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to distinguish the present case from the decision cited above.

[2025:RJ-JP:21679-DB] (4 of 4) [ITA-89/2023]

7.

In view of the decision of this Court in Harish Jain (supra), the appeals are dismissed.

8.

The substantial question of law is answered against the revenue. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/81-85

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →