SONU HALDER,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 26/JPR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 August 2019AY 2008-092 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not appear before the AO due to medical advice for complete bed rest for three months due to back pain. Documentary proof was provided to support this claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) during the assessment proceedings for AY 2008-09. A penalty was imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for this non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed for non-appearance before the AO is justified when the assessee provides valid medical reasons and supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC

Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMAvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 26/JP/2018

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Kumar Garg (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 07/08/2019Pronounced: 08/08/2019

ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated 26/10/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09 in the matter of imposition of penalty U/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) amounting to Rs. 10,000/-.

2.

I have considered the rival contentions and found that the assessee was a patient of back pain and advised complete bed rest for 2 ITA 26/JP/2018 Sonu Haldar Vs ITO three months, therefore, the assessee could not appear before the A.O. documentary proof in support of the same was placed on record. Considering the same, I do not find any merit in the penalty so imposed U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for not appearing before the A.O. during the relevant time.

3.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08th August, 2019

1.

Sd/- ¼jes'k lh 'kekZ½ (RAMESH C SHARMA) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 08th August, 2019 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Sonu Haldar, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 5(1), Jaipur. 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. 26/JP/2018) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →