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

ITA 1922/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vinod Jindal, the appellant, who contested a penalty imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Faridabad, under Section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initially upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon, but was later quashed by the Tribunal. The penalty was based on alleged concealment of income amounting to Rs. 8,95,000, which was added to the assessee's income during the assessment year 2017-18. The Tribunal's decision to quash the penalty was influenced by a prior ruling where the related income additions were deleted, rendering the basis for the penalty invalid.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784864 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Vinod Jindal Vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle -2 Faridabad
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Competent authority
• Section: 142(1); 153A

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1922/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vinod Jindal, H.No. 1203A, Tower C-3 SRS Pearl Heights, Sector -87 Faridabad, Haryana- 121007 Pan No. AENPJ1202Q Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2 Faridabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellants by Ms.Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Dheeraj kumar Jain, Sr. DR. Date of hearing: 13/10/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 12/11/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 Gurgaon, [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], vide order dated 28.01.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 and arises out of the penalty order dated 25-03- 2022 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271 AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’]. Printed from counselvise.com 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 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. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in Printed from counselvise.com 3 upholding the action of the Ld.AO in imposing penalty of Rs.69138/- u/s 271AAC(1) and framing the impugned penalty order and passing the impugned penalty order and that too without recording the mandatory ‘satisfaction’ as per 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. 7. The appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 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 Printed from counselvise.com 4 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. 4. The Ld. AR has submitted that the penalty order passed by AO is bad in law because the addition made by Assessing officer have been deleted by the Hon’ble Tribunal by order dated 12-09-2025, passed in ITA No.1983/Del/2025 Vinod Jindal Vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle -2 Faridabad. 5. The Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded this fact. Printed from counselvise.com 5 6. We have heard the revival contention of the parties and gone through the material available on record. We find that in quantum proceedings the Co-ordinate Bench allowed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, we hold that penalty order does not survive and same is liable to be quashed and quashed accordingly. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.11.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Neha, Sr PS Date:-12.11.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals) ` 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "