ANNARAM PRAJAPAT,CHURU vs. ADDL. CIT, JHUNJHUNU RANGE

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘B’ 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. 1288/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 cuke Shri Annaram Prajapat The Addl.CIT, Vs. S/o- Goru Ram Prajapat, Jhunjhunu Range, Ward No. 14, Bhartiyon Ki Dhani, Jhunjhunu. Ratangarh, Churu-331022. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BEMPP 3939 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Rooni Pal (DCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 23/06/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 23/06/2020 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)- III, Jaipur dated 06.09.2019 for the assessment year 2011-12 wherein assessee has challenged the confirmation of the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act.

on merit. It was submitted that the assessee belongs to a rural area and an illiterate person and the appeal has been filed through his Counsel at Ratangarh Churu and due to communication gap with the Counsel, the matter couldn’t be attended before the ld CIT(A). It was however submitted that Shri Annaram Prajapat vs. ACIT there was no malafide intention in not attending to the hearings scheduled before the ld CIT(A). It was accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be heard on merits and necessary relief may be granted to the assessee. On merits, it was submitted that the Assessing officer has wrongly understood the transaction between the assessee and his father as that of loan rather the transaction was of gift of money by the father to the assessee and an affidavit of the father has also been placed on record. It was submitted that the assessee was in need of money for purchase of land and accordingly, an amount of Rs 5 lacs has been received as gift from the assessee’s father. It was accordingly submitted that on such transaction of gift of money received by the assessee from his father, there is no basis for levy of penalty u/s 269SS of the Act. Further, reliance was placed on Coordinate Bench decisions in case of Haresh Kumar Becharbhai Patel vs JCIT (2019)

55. CCH 224(Ahd) and Gouran Chandra Nayak vs JCIT (2020)

77. ITR (Trib) 192.

3. Per contra, the ld. DR drawn our reference to the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that on as many as six occasions, the assessee was provided reasonable opportunity by the ld. CIT(A) but the assessee or his AR has not bothered even to respond to such notices and to appear before the ld. CIT(A). It was accordingly submitted that more than adequate opportunity has been provided by the ld. CIT(A) and no purposes would be served in providing further opportunity to the assessee. On merits, the ld DR submitted that where the assessee was in need of funds, he could have taken the money through cheque from his father, rather, he has received cash from his father which is in the nature of loan as pointed out by the Assessing officer and the provisions of section 269SS are therefore clearly attracted and the penalty has been rightly levied by the AO u/s 271D and confirmed by the ld CIT(A). Further, ld DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 2 Shri Annaram Prajapat vs. ACIT

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/06/2020.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vijay Pal Rao) (Vikram Singh Yadav) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 23/06/2020 *Santosh. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Annaram Prajapat, Churu. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Addl.CIT, Jhunjhunu Range, Jhunjhunu. 3 Shri Annaram Prajapat vs. ACIT