VANDANA SHARMA,JHALAWAR vs. CIT APPEALS, NFAC, DELHI, CIT APPEALS, NFAC, DELHI

By way of this appeal, the assessee is basically aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC in confirming the penalty imposed U/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not provided meaningful and effective representation before the authorities below. He also submitted that the assessee is running e- mitra services authorized by the Government of Rajasthan for providing 2 Vandana Sharma Vs CIT(A), NFAC utilities services. It is contended that the assessee had never been an income tax payee as the income remained lower than the prescribed limit.

On the contrary, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.

I have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material placed on record. I have seen from the records that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunity to represent her case, therefore, in the interest of principles of natural justice, I hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the issue of levy of penalty U/s 271F of the Act to the file of the A.O. to decide the issue afresh after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/12/2021.

Sd/- (Kul Bharat) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 23/12/2021 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Vandana Sharma, Jhalawar. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 209/JP/2021) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत