DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. JUGAL KISHORE GARG ALIAS SH. JUGAL KISHORE DEREWALA, JAIPUR

ITA 1318/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 November 2025AY 2012-137 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not committed any illegality in setting aside the penalty orders passed under Sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary reason for the CIT(A)'s decision was that the penalty orders were passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Hissaria Brothers, which held that the relevant date for determining the limitation period for penalties under Sections 271D and 271E is the date of the assessment order. The CIT(A) observed that the assessment orders were passed on March 29, 2024, and therefore, the penalty orders should have been passed by September 30, 2024. Since the penalty orders were passed on December 23, 2024, they were indeed barred by limitation. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings, especially as the revenue offered no arguments to the contrary. Consequently, the appeals filed by the department were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, heard four appeals filed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax against orders passed by the CIT(A). The appeals pertained to assessment years 2012-13 and 2016-17. The assessee, Sh. Jugal Kishore Garg, had filed appeals before the CIT(A) challenging penalty orders passed under Section 271D and Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalties were levied on December 23, 2024. The CIT(A), in four separate orders dated July 30, 2024, set aside all the penalty orders, holding them to be barred by limitation. The department is now challenging these orders of the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty orders passed under Section 271D and Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were barred by limitation, thereby justifying their setting aside by the CIT(A)? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) rightly allowed the appeals and deleted the penalty orders. They relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria Brothers, 386 ITR 719 (2016), which was also upheld by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Hissaria Brothers (2007) 291 ITR 244. The assessee contended that the ratio decidendi of these judgments is that the relevant date for determining the limitation period for penalty under Sections 271D and 271E is the date of passing the assessment order, and that penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings. Revenue's contentions: The learned DR for the department did not raise any arguments against the CIT(A)'s decision or cite any other contrary decision from the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 271E,Section 275(1),Section 269SS,Section 269T

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT

PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .

All the above captioned four appeals, by the department are being disposed of by this common order, as same issue is involved, and same arguments has been advanced.

On 30.07.2024, Learned CIT(A) disposed of four appeals filed by the assessee, relating to the assessment years 2012-13 and 2016-17.

The assessee had filed one appeal, chal

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →