[2025:RJ-JP:8190-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17570/2024 Nirmal Kumar Bardiya, Son Of Sagarmal Kalyanmal Jain, Aged About 63 Years, Having His Address At 24, Bardiya Colony, Museum Road, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -4 Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 2. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jodhpur, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota, C-Road, Jodhpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Apeksha Bapna with Mr. Rohan Chatter for Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Meyhul Mittal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 24/02/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL): 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of notice dated 04.10.2024 issued under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed return for Assessment Year 2019-2020. Search was conducted at the premises of the petitioner, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and the proceedings culminated in assessment order dated 22.03.2024. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central [2025:RJ-JP:8190-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-17570/2024] Circle, Jodhpur issued notice u/s 271D of the Act for levying penalty. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no satisfaction recorded in the assessment order for initiating proceedings u/s 271D of the Act, however, it was recorded that the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act shall be initiated separately. Reliance is placed upon decision of this Court dated 30.01.2025 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1102/2025; Sunil Agrawal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. and connected matters, in which the petition filed by the petitioner (in the present case) was also decided. The contention is that the writ petitions were allowed relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills reported in [(2015) 379 ITR 521 (SC)] to the effect that in absence of satisfaction having been recorded in the assessment order, penalty proceedings cannot be initiated. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to distinguish the present case from the citation relied upon. 5. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in D.B.C.W.P. No.1102/2025 and the impugned notice is quashed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /47