SMT. POONAM PANDEY,JHUNJHUNU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHUNJHUNU

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, 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. 45/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2007-08 cuke Smt. Poonam Pandey, J.C.I.T., Vs. L/H of Late Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey, Jhunjhunu Range, B-Block, B 79, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Jhunjhunu. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: CCYPP 8524 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 18/09/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 25/09/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated

21/10/2016 of ld. CIT(A)-35, New Delhi/Camp Office at Jaipur arising

from the penalty order passed U/s 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in

short the Act) for the A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee has raised following

grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has legally and factually erred in confirming a penalty of Rs. 9,00,000/- U/s 271E of the Act ignoring the fact of the case as alleged in the penalty order and also without appreciating the facts of the case in its right perspective.

ITA 45/JP/2018_ 2 Poonam Pandey Vs JCIT

none has appeared on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). We

further note that the ld. CIT(A) has stated in the order regarding two

notices issued to the assessee in para 4.2 as under:

“4.2 During the appellate proceedings, there was non-compliance by the appellant/AR. The details of non-compliance is as follows: Issue of notice U/s 250(1) Hearing of fixed for Response of the appellant. 25/05/2015 12/06/2015 Request for adjournment 10/10/2016 20/10/2016 None appeared Hence, there were no additional submissions or facts brought up by the appellant to defend its appeal. The appeal is therefore, being decided on the basis of facts and record available in file.”

appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee expired on 09/09/2012. He has

filed a copy of the death certificate of the assessee and submitted that

due to the death of the assessee, nobody had appeared on behalf of the

assessee before the ld. CIT(A). He has further pointed out that the appeal

filed by the assessee against the order passed U/s 271D of the Act is still

pending before the ld. CIT(A) and the legal heirs of the assessee have

already been brought on record in the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Thus,

the ld AR has pleaded that the assessee through his legal heirs may be

ITA 45/JP/2018_ 3 Poonam Pandey Vs JCIT

given one more chance to present the case of the assessee before the ld.

CIT(A) as the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex parte.

the assessee and submitted that the legal heirs of the assessee ought to

have taken appropriate steps before the ld. CIT(A).

of the record we find that after filing the appeal on 24/8/2012, the

assessee expired on 09/09/2012 and therefore, there was no appearance

before the ld. CIT(A) on behalf of the assessee. Though, the legal heirs of

the assessee ought to have taken the appropriate steps for pursuing the

appeal and substituting the deceased assessee, however, since it is a case

of death of the assessee during the pendency of the appeal and rather

just after filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the facts

and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the legal

heirss of the assessee are granted one more opportunity to present the

case before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order

and remit the matter back to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for granting the

opportunity of hearing to the assessee through legal heirs and then

decide the same afresh.

ITA 45/JP/2018_ 4 Poonam Pandey Vs JCIT 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes only.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25/09/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼foØe flag ;kno½ ¼fot; iky jko½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 25th September, 2018 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Poonam Pandey, L/H of Late Shri 1. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Jaipur. izR;FkhZ@ 2. The Respondent- The J.C.I.T., Jhunjhunu Range, Jhunjhunu. 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. 45/JP/2018) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत