DINESH VERMA,MANALI, HIMACHAL PRADESH V. ITO, ITO WARD KULLU

ITA 897/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Dinesh Verma against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh, which revised the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The PCIT invoked section 263, directing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A due to under-reporting of income. The Tribunal examined whether the PCIT was justified in revising the assessment order and directing the initiation of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the applicability of penalty provisions during the assessment, which was a statutory requirement, thus upholding the PCIT's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 842073 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Addl. CIT vs. J.K. D osta, Addl. CIT vs. Achal Kumar Jain, CIT vs. Sudarshan Talkies, CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan, CIT vs. KeshrimalParasmal, CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd., CIT vs. Parmanand Patel
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANAV BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAMAR GUPTA; C.A VIRTUALLY
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Revision of order
• Section: 147; 148; 263

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “ए” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE ŵी लिलत क ुमार, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी क ृणवȶ सहाय, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 897/Chd/ 2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dinesh Verma Shop No. 58, Bhaga Sidh Trader, Siyali Mahadev Market Manali, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh-175131 बनाम The ITO ITO Ward Kullu, Himachal Pradesh-175131 ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AJAPV2790D अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vinamar Gupta, C.A (Virtually) राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/02/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/02/2026 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT, Chandigarh-1, dt. 04/03/2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 40 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit explaining that the delay occurred due to procedural circumstances beyond his control, and the same was neither intentional nor deliberate. The learned Departmental Representative opposed the condonation but did not controvert the factual explanation. Having considered the explanation and keeping in view that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing the appeal within time. Accordingly, the delay of 40 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on the merits. 3. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: Printed from counselvise.com 2 1. That the Learned PCIT has erred in law and facts and circumstance of the case invoking section 263 by directing the AO to initiate penalty u/s 270A when no penalty u/s 270A was initiated by AO in his order. 2. That the Learned PCIT has erred in law and facts and circumstance of the case invoking section 263 by directing the AO to initiate penalty u/s 270A inspite the fact that he himself has not initiated any penalty proceedings u/s 270A. 3. That the Learned CIT has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by relying upon Allahabad High Court decisions rendered in the year 2005 and ignoring the jurisprudence laid before and thereafter. 4. That the Learned CIT has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by ignoring supreme court decision in Vegetable Products 88 ITR 192. 5. That the Learned CIT has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by directing to revise order which is void ab initio because assessment has been carried out in violation of Notification dated 29-03-2022 issued u/s 151A. 4. Briefly stated, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer, determining the income of the assessee. On examination of records, the Principal Commissioner observed that the Assessing Officer had passed the order without proper verification of material issues and without examining the applicability of penalty provisions under section 270A arising out of the determination of income. The Principal Commissioner, therefore, held that the assessment order was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and set aside the assessment with a direction to frame the order afresh after a proper enquiry. The relevant portion of the finding of the Ld. PCIT are as under: 7.1 In the instant case, the assessee had not filed the original ROI despite having a taxable income, and thereafter, he filed the ROI only in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Had the provisions of section 147 not been invoked, the assessee would have never filed the ROI and paid the taxes. Since the Assessing Officer failed to initiate the penalty proceedings which were warranted as per the Act, the two conditions of the impugned order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue therefore exist. 7.3 It is well established that the Assessing Officer has to initiate proceedings for imposition of penalty during the course of the assessment itself. If he fails to initiate or record his satisfaction for the initiation of the penalty proceedings during the course of the assessment proceedings, it would be a case where the assessment order can be said to be erroneous as he has not decided a point nor recorded a finding on an issue which ought to have been done. Printed from counselvise.com 3 7.4 In view of the above, the Assessment Order in the instant case is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore the Pr.CIT has jurisdiction to invoke provisions of Section 263 and revise the Order. 9. In view of all the above, it is held that the objections raised by the assessee vide his written submissions dated 03.01.2025 in response to notice u/s 263, are not tenable in law as well as in facts. Considering the facts of the case as discussed in preceding paragraphs, it is hereby held that the Assessment Order passed by the A.O. (NaFAC) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B on 13.03.2023 for A.Y. 2018-19 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the same is set-aside to the file of the A.O. for the purpose of initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act after following due procedure laid down and to take consequential action. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had examined the matter and therefore the revision under section 263 was invalid. It was contended that the Principal Commissioner merely substituted his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer and no lack of enquiry existed. The AR further submitted that initiation of penalty proceedings is independent of assessment proceedings and failure to initiate penalty cannot render the assessment erroneous. It was argued that the provisions of section 263 cannot be invoked merely to direct the initiation of penalty proceedings. In support of these contentions, reliance was placed upon the decisions in Addl. CIT vs. J.K. D’Costa (133 ITR 7, Delhi), Addl. CIT vs. Achal Kumar Jain (142 ITR 606, Delhi), CIT vs. Sudarshan Talkies (201 ITR 289, Delhi), CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (242 ITR 45, Delhi), CIT vs. KeshrimalParasmal (157 ITR 484, Rajasthan), CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (192 ITR 337, Calcutta), CIT vs. Parmanand Patel (278 ITR 3, Gujarat), and certain Tribunal decisions including Amarjeet Dhall, Easy Transcription & Software Pvt. Ltd., GM Builders and Air Wind Green Energy Ltd., to contend that revision cannot be exercised merely for initiation of penalty proceedings and therefore the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 7. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the order passed under section 263 and submitted that the assessment order was passed in a routine manner without enquiry and without examining statutory consequences arising from the assessment. It was submitted that the penalty under section 270A is Printed from counselvise.com 4 directly linked to the determination of income and therefore failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue amounts to a lack of enquiry and renders the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The DR further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the assessee relate to the old penalty provisions and are distinguishable. He had drawn our attention to the following provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 263 The Principal Commissioner may revise any order if it is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and may cancel the assessment and direct fresh assessment. Section 270A The Assessing Officer may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that a person who has under-reported his income shall be liable to pay a penalty. Further, under-reporting includes a case where income is assessed in a return filed for the first time under section 148. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Section 263 of the Act empowers the Principal Commissioner to revise an order if he considers that any order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Thus, the twin conditions of “erroneous” and “prejudicial” must co-exist. Section 270A provides for the levy of a penalty on under- reporting or misreporting of income determined during assessment proceedings. The penalty is computed with reference to the income assessed and therefore arises directly from the assessment determination. 8.1 The admitted position is that the assessee did not file the original return and filed the return only after the issuance of notice under section 148. Therefore, the case squarely falls within the statutory under-reporting of income under section 270A.The language of section 270A clearly provides that the penalty is to be considered during the course of proceedings under the Act. Hence, initiation of penalty proceedings is intrinsically connected with assessment proceedings and not independent of them. 8.2 When the statute itself mandates consideration of penalty in defined situations, failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue amounts to non-application of mind and lack of enquiry. Therefore, the assessment order becomes erroneous and Printed from counselvise.com 5 prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263. Therefore, the principal contention of the assessee is that penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings are not sustainable. We are unable to accept this contention in the context of section 270A. The existence and quantification of under-reported income is to be determined only upon completion of assessment, and therefore initiation of proceedings under section 270A forms part of the statutory consequences flowing from assessment itself. The omission of the Assessing Officer to examine such consequences amounts to a failure to apply mind and renders the assessment legally unsustainable. 8.3 The assessee has relied heavily upon the decision in J.K. D’Costa (Delhi High Court) and other decisions of the Tribunal. In J.K. D’Costa (Delhi High Court)case, the Assessing Officer failed to initiate a penalty under sections 271(1)(a) and 273, and the Commissioner revised the assessment, directing the initiation of a penalty. The High Court held that penalty proceedings under the old scheme were independent, and that failure to initiate them did not render the assessment erroneous. However, the said decision was rendered in the context of the earlier penalty provisions, which were concealment-based and dependent upon subjective satisfaction. The present case is governed by section 270A, which creates statutory situations of under-reporting linked directly to assessed income. Therefore, the ratio of that decision cannot be applied to the present statutory framework. 8.4 We also find guidance from the reasoning adopted by the recent decision of Bangalore Tribunal passed under section 263 r.w.s 270A wherein it was held that when the Assessing Officer passes an order without proper enquiry into statutory implications arising from the assessment, the order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the Assessing Officer has failed to discharge his investigative duty. Applying the same principle, failure to examine the applicability of section 270A consequences constitutes lack of enquiry. All the other judgments relied upon by the assessee were rendered in the context of earlier penalty provisions, and none of them deals with the scheme of section 270A, which statutorily links penalty to assessed income. Therefore, those authorities are distinguishable on facts as well as law. Printed from counselvise.com 6 8.5 In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Assessing Officer failed to examine statutory consequences arising from the assessment and therefore the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Principal Commissioner has rightly exercised revisionary jurisdiction under section 263. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/02/2026 Sd/- Sd/- क ृणवȶ सहाय लिलत क ुमार (KRINWANT SAHAY) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ɋाियक सद˟ /JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "