Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central), Rajasthan ,Fourth Floor, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle,Jaipur v. Ram Kishan Verma, 33 A, Talwandi, Kota

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 4ThFloor, 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, 4ThFloor, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Marg, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Ram Kishan Verma, 33 -A, Talwandi, Kota-324005 (Pan/gir No. -Addpk1093R). HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHITOrder 22/05/2025 1.These appeals are decided by common order as the facts andissues involved are similar. For the sake of convenience, the factsare being taken from DBITA No.89/2023. 2.This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order of Income Taxtribunal dated 25.11.2022 passed. 3.The brief facts are that consequent to the search conductedon 07.09.2017 at the residential/business premises of ResonanceGroup, Kota, notice under section 153-A of the Act was issued on05.07.2018 to the respondent-assessee (hereinafter referred to as‘assessee’). The assessee filed return declaring income of Rs.71,22,29,910/- and agriculture income of Rs.3,22,500/-. Theassessment was finalised vide order dated 30.12.2019 undersection 143(3) read with 153-A of the Act. In the assessmentorder, the assessing officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’)recorded satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings undersection 271-AAB(1A) of the Act but initiated penalty proceedingsunder section 271(1)(c). The revisional authority under section263 of the Act vide order dated 23.03.2022 directed the AO toinitiate penalty Proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Actafter recording due satisfaction independently. The appeal of theassessee was accepted by the tribunal and revisional order wasset aside. 4.The appeal was admitted on 08.11.2023 on following substantial question of law:- (i)Whether the Ld. ITAT justified ininterfering with the order passed under Section263 of the I.T. Act by the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax holding thatpresent was not a case of an erroneous order ofassessment being prejudicial to the interest ofrevenue?” 5.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the tribunal had decided appeals of the three assessees by a common orderand one of them is the assessee. Relies upon order of this courtdated 03.03.2025 titled as Principal Commissioner of Income Taxversus Harish Jain & other connected matters reported in [2025:RJ-JP;9218-DB], wherein the identical issue has been decided andthe substantial question of law has been answered against therevenue. 6.Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position todistinguish the present case from the decision cited above. 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 therevenue. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/81-85