PARVEEN GARG ,DELHI V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, NEW DELHI

ITA 5993/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Parveen Garg, who appealed against the penalty imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax following a search operation that uncovered unreported cash. Initially, a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on another individual, Nitish Garg, during which a significant amount of cash was found. It was later claimed that a portion of this cash belonged to Parveen Garg, who admitted to this and declared the income in a subsequent return under Section 153C. The penalty was imposed for not declaring this income in the original return filed under Section 139. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was influenced by precedents that penalties should not be automatically imposed when revised returns showing higher income are accepted by the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841025 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: MAK Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 19 vs. Neeraj Jindal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PARITOSH JAIN
• Keywords: Revised return; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 132; 153A; 139

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA Nos. 5993/Del/2025 ParveenGarg Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5993/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) Parveen Garg IX/6934, PremGali, Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 PAN: ADDPK5642C V s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-16 New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh.Paritosh Jain, Adv Revenue by Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement 26/02/2026 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned Appeal is filed by the Assessee challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) order dated 10/07/2025 for A.Y 2018-19. 2. Brief facts as mentioned in the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: “Original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act was filed by the appellant on 31.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 6,82,550/-. A Search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Sh. NitishGarg on 16.04.2019. During the course of Search proceedings, cash amounting to Rs. 42,00,000/- was found and seized from the possession of Sh. Nitish Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos. 5993/Del/2025 ParveenGarg Vs. DCIT Garg. During the course of assessment proceedings, in the case of Sh. NitishGarg, it was submitted that out of cash amounting to Rs. 42,00,000/- found and seized on 16.04.2019 during Search action u/s132 of the Act, cash amounting to Rs. 22,00,000/- belongs to his father Sh. ParveenGarg. Sh. ParveenGarg also admitted that cash amounting to Rs. 22,00,000/- belonged to him. The Assessing Officer (AO) of the searched persons has recorded his satisfaction dated 29.09.2021 and handed over the seized material to the AO of the other person i.e. Sh. Praveen Garg., (PAN: ADDPK5642C). The seized materials were perused and after arriving at satisfaction that the information contained in the seized documents pertains to the assessee and have a bearing on the determination of total income of the assessee, satisfaction note was recorded by the AO of the assessee on 03.11.2021. As the conditions mandated u/s 153C of the Act were fulfilled, assessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the appellant u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Thereafter, assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 5,31,890/-. The AO has initiated penalty proceedings as the assessee has declared the differential amount after the Search proceedings. Thereafter, penalty u/s 270A of the Act, was imposed by the AO amounting to Rs. 2.19,140/-.” Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos. 5993/Del/2025 ParveenGarg Vs. DCIT 3. Aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 29/09/2023, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10/07/2025, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. As agaisnt the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 10/07/2025, Assessee preferred the captioned Appeal. 4. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that both the authorities have committed grave error imposing and upholding the penalty on the additional income declared by the Assessee under Income Tax Return filed u/s 153C of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the Assessee has not declared the said income in the return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act due to inadvertent, unintentional and bona-fide mistake evident from the fact that the Assessee has paid the tax including interest on the said income much before the initiation of proceedings and voluntary declared the same before it is detected by the A.O. In support of the said contention, the Ld. Assessee's Representative relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2013) 38 Taxman.com 448 (SC) and the Judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 19 vs. Neeraj Jindal reported in (2017) 79 Taxmann.com 96 (Delhi). Thus, Ld. Assessee's Representative sought for allowing the Appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos. 5993/Del/2025 ParveenGarg Vs. DCIT 5. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case, the Assessee declared an additional income of Rs. 5,31,890/- in the return filed u/s 153C of the Act. It is the case of the Assessee that not declaring the said income in the return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act was due to inadvertent, unintentional and bona-fide mistake. Admittedly, the Assessee has paid the tax dues including the interest much before initiation of the assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Neeraj Jindal (supra) held that, when an assessee has filed revised return after search has been conducted and such revised return has been accepted by Assessing Officer, then merely by virtue of fact that such return showed a higher income, penalty under Section 271 (1)(C) cannot be automatically imposed. 7. Considering the fact that Assessee has voluntarily declared the income and paid the due tax including the interest, by relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), we delete the penalty. Accordingly, Grounds of Appeal of the Assessee are allowed. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos. 5993/Del/2025 ParveenGarg Vs. DCIT 8. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th February , 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:-26.02.2026 Reshma Naheed, Sr.P.S Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "