Pawan Kumar Jain v. Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, 4Thfloor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle,Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3537/2025 Pawan Kumar Jain S/o Shri Nathu Lal Jain, Aged About 49 Years,C/o Chanda Lal Kalyan Mal And Sons, 1, Near Jaipur GlassFactory, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302015 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Additional/joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, 4ThFloor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle,Jaipur-302005Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle,Jaipur-302005 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Cirlce-1,4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle,Jaipur-3020054Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle,Jaipur-302005 3. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), NewCentral Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur,Rajasthan 302005Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur,Rajasthan 302005 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Agrawal : Mr. Siddharth Bapna withMr. Meyhul MittalMr. Meyhul Mittal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA 03/04/2025 Order 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by order dated30.01.2025 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. CivilWrit Petition No. 1102/2025-Sunil Agrawal Vs. AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax and batch of petitions wherein ithas been held that where no satisfaction is recorded, as requiredunder Section 271E of the Act and even though AO has directed initiation of proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, thepenalty proceedings are liable to be quashed in the absence ofsatisfaction. He would submit that on facts also, in the assessmentorder dated 22.02.2024, no such satisfaction as required underthe law for initiation of proceedings under Section 271D of the Actof 1961 has been recorded. Therefore, the penalty proceedingsare liable to be quashed. 2.Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position todispute the factual statement and the legal position, as statedhereinabove. 3.In that view of the matter, the penalty proceedings initiatedin this case are also liable to be quashed and, accordingly, thesame is quashed. 4.The petition is, accordingly, allowed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N.Gandhi/Neeru/15