KHUSHBU BRIJ KISHORE SHARDA,THANE vs. ITO, JODHPUR

Heard the rival contention, perused the material on record and the impugned order. Admittedly, the grievance of the appellant that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly observed that the penalty appeal has already been decided by the ld. CIT(A), Jodhpur but it was the quantum appeal decided by the ld. CIT(A), Jodhpur is found factually incorrect. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) should have taken due care while adjudicating the grounds of appeal, the issue raised in particular, and making observation thereof. We observe that such negligence in observing that the penalty appeal is Khushbu Brij Kishore Sharda v. ITO already decided in place of quantum appeal by the then CIT(A), Jodhpur is factual error, which resulted in loss of valuable time and energy of the department and the appellant as well. The ld. CIT(A) is therefore, directed to take due care while making factual observations while adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. With this observation, we remand back the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee and considering the written submissions filed on record and to be filed in due course of the appellate proceedings before him. No doubt, the assessee shall co-operate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.