KANHIYA LAL SAIN VS JCIT, RANGE-7, JAIPUR

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

Shri Kanhiya Lal Sain, a lawyer, filed his income return declaring a total income of Rs.1,48,000/- on 15.07.2010. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 on 17.03.2017. In response, the assessee filed a reply and details. The Assessing Officer accepted the source of investment and completed the assessment at the returned income of Rs. 1,48,000/- under section 143(3)/147 on 06.09.2017. However, the Assessing Officer did not initiate penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issued a Show Cause Notice on 11.12.2018, and the assessee replied on 21.01.2019. The Additional Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under section 271D and Rs.60,000/- under section 271E. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was dismissed. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The assessee challenges the legality of the penalty imposed under sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
• 2. The assessee argues that the penalty was imposed without proper satisfaction being recorded by the Assessing Officer.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Maheshkumar Laljidas Patel Vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• ITA Nos. 9051 & ors/Del/2019 DCIT VS. Mohd. Shahnawaz

  Delhi bench

• Sh. Prem Singh Saini vs. Addl. CIT

  Jaipur bench

• Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren vs. Addl.CIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19Allowed

• ITA Nos. 727 & 730/Coch/2023

  Cochin bench

• M/S Apcon Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl.CIT, Central Range-2, Ranchi

  Ranchi bench