SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI V. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4, DELHI

SA 404/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren, the applicant/assessee, who filed stay applications against the penalties imposed for various assessment years under sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act. The penalties were substantial, ranging from approximately Rs. 3.19 crore to Rs. 44.79 crore for the years 2015-16 to 2018-19. The assessee argued that the orders passed by the Addl. CIT and Pr.CIT-26 were cryptic, non-speaking, and lacked proper application of mind, thus not justifying the penalties. The assessee also highlighted financial distress due to aggressive recovery actions by the Tax Recovery Officer, claiming that the average annual income was only Rs. 5 to 6 lakhs, insufficient to meet even basic living expenses, let alone pay the disputed demands. The Revenue opposed the stay, leading to the tribunal's decision to reject the stay applications but grant an early hearing of the appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714613 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESHWAR PRASAD PAINULLY
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Application of stay
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER SA Nos.399 to 406/Del/2025 (in ITA Nos.2919 to 2926/Del/2025) (Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2018-19) Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren, vs. Addl. CIT, Aerens Estate, Mall Road, Central Range 4, Behind Pkt – D – 3, Kishan Garh, Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (PAN : AAGPG8854J) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT/ASSESSEE BY: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painully. AR REVENUE BY : Shri Amit Kumar Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.08.2025 Date of Order : 08.08.2025 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. Applicant/Assessee, Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) filed the present stay applications sought to stay the demand in the aforesaid stay applications as under :- S. No. ITAT Appeal No. Penalty amount Under section Assessment year 1. 2919/Del/2025 11,04,37,000 271D 2015-16 2. 2920/Del/2025 8,09,92,000 271E 2015-16 3. 2921/Del/2025 14,76,75,000 271E 2016-17 Printed from counselvise.com 2 SA Nos.399 to 406/Del/2025 4. 2922/Del/2025 18,90,01,000 271D 2016-17 5. 2923/Del/2025 44,79,87,700 271E 2017-18 6. 2924/Del/2025 27,52,37,500 271D 2017-18 7. 2925/Del/2025 3,19,97,500 271D 2018-19 8. 2926/Del/2025 1,20,00,000 271E 2018-19 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made in the stay applications and submitted that Addl. CIT, Central Range 4, New Delhi and Pr.CIT-26, New Delhi have failed to pass a reasoned order in support of the penalty and the orders are cryptic and non-speaking, without due application of mind and the submissions of the assessee and confirmed by CIT(A)-26, New Delhi in a mechanical manner. He further submitted that the consolidated satisfaction note is based in a very mechanical manner without application of mind and not allowable as settled by various judgments. Further, he submitted that the assessee was hard pressed by the Office of the Tax Recovery Officer, TRO, Central Delhi, for recovery of disputed outstanding tax demand, causing severe financial and operational distress to the assessee and submitted that the assessee’s average annual income during the past 4 to 5 years has been approximately Rs.5 to 6 lakhs per year, which is barely sufficient to meet personal and family living expenses and the assessee is not in a financial position to pay off the balance outstanding demand without causing severe financial distress. Accordingly, he submitted that if coercive recovery proceedings are initiated, it would give irreparable harm Printed from counselvise.com 3 SA Nos.399 to 406/Del/2025 and injury to the assessee and, therefore, prayed that the stay may be granted. In the alternative, he prayed for early hearing of the appeals. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue objected to the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee and prayed that the stay applications be rejected. 4. Heard and perused the record. After considering the rival submissions, we observe that assessee has not been able to prove any balance of convenience in his favour in all the stay petitions. Hence, we are not inclined to grant the stay and accordingly, all the stay applications are rejected. However, in the interest of justice, the alternative plea of the assessee for grant of early hearing of the appeals is accepted and accordingly, the appeals are listed for hearing on 12.08.2025 before the regular Bench. Both the parties are informed in the open court. 5. In the result, the stay applications are rejected. Order pronounced in the open court on this 8th day of August, 2025 after the conclusion of the hearing. SD/- SD/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 08.08.2025 TS Printed from counselvise.com 4 SA Nos.399 to 406/Del/2025 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "