PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, V. RAM KISHAN VERMA

ITA/89/2023

AI Insights

This case involves multiple appeals by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Rajasthan against Ram Kishan Verma and Manoj Kumar Sharma concerning penalty proceedings under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were consolidated due to the similarity in facts and issues. The core issue revolved around the appropriateness of penalty proceedings initiated under different sections of the Act following an income assessment. The Income Tax Tribunal had previously set aside the revisional order directing the initiation of penalty proceedings, which was contested by the Principal Commissioner in these appeals. The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the appeals, referencing a similar case decision where the court found no erroneous order of assessment that was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 740230 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax versus Harish Jain & other connected matters
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MAHENDRA GARGIEYA; TARAK AHUJA; HEMANG GARGIEYA
• Assessee Lawyers: SARVESH JAIN; MEYHUL MITTAL
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Erroneous order; Income tax appeal; Penalty proceedings; Revisional Authority
• Section: 143(3); 263; 271(1)(c); 153(A); 260-A; 271-AAB(1A)

Judgement Text

"[2025:RJ-JP:21679-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 89/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central), Rajasthan , Fourth Floor, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Ram Kishan Verma, 33 A, Talwandi, Kota- 324005 (Pan/gir No. Addpk1093R) ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 88/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central), Rajasthan , Fourth Floor, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Ram Kishan Verma, 33 A, Talwandi, Kota-324005 (Pan/gir No. Addpk1093R) ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 90/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central), Rajasthan 4Th Floor, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus Ram Kishan Verma, 33 A, Talwandi, Kota-324005 (Pan/gir No. Addpk1093R) ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 94/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central) Rajasthan, 4Th Floor, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Marg, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Ram Kishan Verma, 33 -A, Talwandi, Kota-324005 (Pan/gir No. - Addpk1093R). [2025:RJ-JP:21679-DB] (2 of 4) [ITA-89/2023] ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 95/2023 The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central) Rajasthan, 4Th Floor, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Marg, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Manoj Kumar Sharma, 4 -G-20, Talwandi, Kota-324005 (Pan/gir No.-Afops0623J). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sarvesh Jain & Mr. Meyhul Mittal for Mr. Siddharth Bapna For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya with Mr. Tarak Ahuja, Mr. Hemang Gargieya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 22/05/2025 1. These appeals are decided by common order as the facts and issues involved are similar. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from DBITA No.89/2023. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order of Income Tax tribunal dated 25.11.2022 passed. 3. The brief facts are that consequent to the search conducted on 07.09.2017 at the residential/business premises of Resonance Group, Kota, notice under section 153-A of the Act was issued on 05.07.2018 to the respondent-assessee (hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’). The assessee filed return declaring income of [2025:RJ-JP:21679-DB] (3 of 4) [ITA-89/2023] Rs.71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs.3,22,500/-. The assessment was finalised vide order dated 30.12.2019 under section 143(3) read with 153-A of the Act. In the assessment order, the assessing officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) recorded satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271-AAB(1A) of the Act but initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The revisional authority under section 263 of the Act vide order dated 23.03.2022 directed the AO to initiate penalty Proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act after recording due satisfaction independently. The appeal of the assessee was accepted by the tribunal and revisional order was set aside. 4. The appeal was admitted on 08.11.2023 on following substantial question of law:- (i) Whether the Ld. ITAT justified in interfering with the order passed under Section 263 of the I.T. Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax holding that present was not a case of an erroneous order of assessment being prejudicial to the interest of revenue?” 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the tribunal had decided appeals of the three assessees by a common order and one of them is the assessee. Relies upon order of this court dated 03.03.2025 titled as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax versus Harish Jain & other connected matters reported in [2025: RJ-JP;9218-DB], wherein the identical issue has been decided and the substantial question of law has been answered against the revenue. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to distinguish the present case from the decision cited above. [2025:RJ-JP:21679-DB] (4 of 4) [ITA-89/2023] 7. In view of the decision of this Court in Harish Jain (supra), the appeals are dismissed. 8. The substantial question of law is answered against the revenue. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/81-85 "