Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 245/JP/2019
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 245/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Smt. Rajni Bhatia The ITO, Vs. 4 THA 24, Jahawar Nagar, Ward-6(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAPPB 4247 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shir Manish Agarwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Miss. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 08/07/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 09/07/2020 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.12.2018 of ld. CIT(A), Ajmer arising from the penalty order passed U/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2009-10. Due to prevailing COVId-19 pandemic condition the hearing of the appeal is concluded through video conference. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- Smt. Rajni Bhatia vs. ITO “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming penalty of Rs.1,64,670/- levied by ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. Appellant prays order so passed is not in accordance with law and deserves to be quashed.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming penalty in respect of addition of Rs.1,85,553/- arbitrarily. Appellant prays that appeal in respect of such addition went till ITAT and was restored to the file of CIT(A), which has been allowed in favour of assessee vide order dated 17.11.2017 and therefore penalty in respect of such addition deserves to be deleted.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming penalty in respect of disallowance of interest of Rs. 3,47,359/- claimed by assessee u/s 24(b). Appellant prays that, interest was inadvertently claimed on the higher side and in fact as soon as the mistake was pointed out by ld.AO, assessee himself offered the same for taxation, thus penalty levied in respect of such interest deserves to be deleted.
4. That, he case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming penalty of Rs.1,64,670/-without appreciating the fact that mere disallowance of claim made by assessee does not ipso facto tantamounts to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is therefore prayed that penalty of Rs.1,64,670/- deserves to be deleted.” 2 Smt. Rajni Bhatia vs. ITO
We have heard the ld. AR as well as ld. DR and considered the relevant material on record. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide ex- parte impugned order and confirmed the levy of penalty. Thus, the ld. AR has pleaded that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present her case before the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee having a good case on merits.
On the other hand, the ld. DR has opposed to request for grant of one more opportunity to the assessee and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has allowed 5 to 6 opportunity to the assessee but none has attended on any date of hearing. She has relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
At the outset, we note that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee summarily in para 3.1 as under:-
“3.1 I have gone through the penalty order carefully. The appellant has not furnished any written submission. In view of the facts discussed by the AO levied penalty of Rs. 1,64,670/- u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of addition of 1,85,553/- and disallowance of interest of Rs. 3,47,359/-. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs. 1,64,670/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of addition/disallowance of Rs. 5,32,912/- made by the AO is hereby confirmed.” 3 Smt. Rajni Bhatia vs. ITO Thus, it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty for want of attendance and written submission on behalf of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has not given any reasoning as to how the addition/disallowance made by the AO amounts to concealment particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case as the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide ex-parte impugned order which is not a speaking order the matter is set aside to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for granting one more opportunity to the assessee to present her case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09/07/2020. Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 09/07/2020. *Santosh. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Rajni Bhatia, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 4