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

ITA 1319/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 by the Assessing Officer. The primary reason for the CIT(A)'s decision was that the penalty orders were passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Tribunal, in its reasoning, referred to Section 271D, Section 271E, and Section 275(1) of the Act. Crucially, the Tribunal relied on the decision in the case of Hissaria Brothers (supra), which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. This precedent established that penalty proceedings under Sections 271D and 271E are independent of assessment proceedings and that the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) applies. Since the Revenue did not present any counter-arguments or opposing precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings. Therefore, all four appeals filed by the department were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax) filed four appeals before the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, challenging the orders of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had set aside four penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer against the assessee, Sh. Jugal Kishore Garg alias Sh. Jugal Kishore Derewala, for assessment years 2012-13 and 2016-17. The penalties were levied under Section 271D and Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had set aside these penalty orders solely on the ground that they were passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The penalty orders were dated 23.12.2024, while the assessment orders were passed on 29.03.2024.

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, as held by the CIT(A)? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 275 of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) rightly allowed the appeals and deleted the penalty orders, as they were barred by limitation. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hissaria Brothers, which upheld the Rajasthan High Court's decision. This decision held that penalty proceedings under Sections 271D and 271E are independent of assessment proceedings, and the limitation period is governed by Section 275(1)(c). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not raise any arguments against the CIT(A)'s decision or cite any contrary precedents 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, ch

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 →