VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

Date of hearing: 13/10/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 12/11/2025 ORDER

PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:

1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld.A) in imposing penalty of Rs.69138/- u/s 271AAC(1) and framing the impugned penalty order and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with the mandatory conditions laid down under the said section and by recording incorrect facts and findings and is bad in law and against the facts & circumstances.

2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding the action of Ld.AO that impugned penalty of Rs.69138/- u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act and framing the impugned penalty order and that too without issuing /serving the mandatory notice and without following the principals of natural justice 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld.AO in imposing penalty and passing the impugned penalty order being illegal barred by limitation and void ab-initio and without obtaining the valid approval from the competent authority in accordance with law.

5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned ex-parte penalty order and that by recording incorrect facts and findings and that too without any basis, material or evidence and without appreciating/considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in passing the impugned penalty order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the in the assessee case a search and seizure operations was conducted on the residential as well as office premises of SRS group of cases on 06-06-2018. Assessment jurisdiction over the assessee was transferred to the circle by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Faridabad. Notice u/s 153A (1)(a) of the Act was issued to the assessee. In the response of the notice the assessee filed return of income showing total Rs, 13,51,710/-. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making the addition of RS. 22,32,990/- on the various head of the Act and also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC (1) of the Act. The Assessing officer held that the assessee had concealed the income of Rs,8,95,000/-, and levied the penalty of Rs.69,138/-/- on the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order dated 28-01- 2025 dismissed the appeal holding that the assessee was failed to furnish any supporting documentary evidence for rebutting the action of ld. AO. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.