LATE SH. JALEY SINGH THROUGH L/H SMT. BUDDHEE DEVI,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ALWAR, ALWAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1434 and 1435/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Late Sh. Jaley Singh Vs. ITO Through Legal Heir Smt. Ward 1(1) Buddhee Devi Alwar Kalani & Co LLP, Chartered Accountants, 5th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:EHEPS 8422 R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. P.C. Parwal, CA Respondent by : Mrs. Aarti Rawat, JCIT Date of Hearing 15.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 21.07.2026 O R D E R Both the appeals relate to the same assessee, arising from separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi(hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), of even date10.09.2025 and pertain to thesame assessment year. While one appeal arises in order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) against the order

P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 1434 and 1435/JPR/2025 Late Sh. Jaley Singh through L/H Smt. Buddhee Devi passed by the Assessing Officer in quantum proceedings under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), theother appeal is against order of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under section 271F of the Act.Since the issues raised in both the appeals are interrelated, both the appeals were taken up for hearing together.

P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 1434 and 1435/JPR/2025 Late Sh. Jaley Singh through L/H Smt. Buddhee Devi me that the Ld. CIT(A), in appellate proceedings before him, gave only one notice of hearing against which the assessee filed an application seeking adjournment, but ignoring the adjournment request of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) passed order, dismissing assessee’s appeal. 5. Considering the facts as above, since the assessee has remained unheard, both before the AO and Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice, I consider it fit to restore the issue back to the AO to be decided afresh, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has given an undertaking that the assessee would not abuse the process of law and would diligently participate in the proceedings before the AO and assist him in determining thetrue and correct income of the assessee. 6. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1435/JP/2025 is therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Taking up the appeal of assessee in penalty proceedings in ITA No.1434/JPR/2025. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F of IT Act, 1961. 2 The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 3Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 8. The background of the case is identical to that in the quantum proceedings, both the penalty order and the Ld. CIT(A) order having been passed ex parte. Since the assessee has remained unheard and the issue in quantum appeal has been restored back to the AO, the penalty issue raised by the assessee before me, is also restored back to the AO

P a g e | 4 ITA Nos. 1434 and 1435/JPR/2025 Late Sh. Jaley Singh through L/H Smt. Buddhee Devi to be decided along with quantum appeal. The AO is directed to give due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed not to abuse the process of law. 9. In effect, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1434/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the combined result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21.07.2026

Sd/- (Annapurna Gupta) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 21.07.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur