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

ITA 1320/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 November 2025AY 2016-177 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders passed under Sections 271D and 271E were indeed barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria Brothers, which was also relied upon by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders were passed on 29.03.2024, and according to the ratio of Hissaria Brothers, the penalty orders should have been passed by 30.09.2024. Since the penalty orders were passed on 23.12.2024, they were beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s orders setting aside the penalty orders on this ground. Consequently, all four appeals filed by the department were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax) has filed four appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) had set aside four penalty orders passed against the assessee, Sh. Jugal Kishore Garg alias Sh. Jugal Kishore Derewala, for assessment years 2012-13 and 2016-17. The penalty orders were levied under Section 271D and Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and were passed on 23.12.2024. The CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeals solely on the ground that the penalty orders were passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

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)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the penalty orders were indeed barred by limitation. They relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria Brothers, which upheld the Rajasthan High Court's decision. This decision held 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 under these sections are independent of assessment proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not raise any arguments contra to the assessee's contentions 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)

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
Hearing: 25/11/2025Pronounced: 25/11/2025

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 →