PUSHPA RAJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 250/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 1997-98 cuke Pushpa Rajawat, Income Tax Officer, Vs. W/o- Shri Bhawani Singh Ward-6(2), Rajawat, Present R/o- 111, Jaipur. Sumer Nagar Extension-A, Opp. Dhanvantri Hospital, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABDPR 1401 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri C.M. Sharma (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 11/12/2017 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 12/12/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-5, Jaipur dated 18/01/2016 for the A.Y. 1997-98.

ITA 250/JP/2016_ 2 Pushpa Rajawat Vs ITO

the Act). He further pleaded that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has

allowed the appeal of the assessee in quantum, therefore, in

consequence of the order, no penalty could be sustained.

authorities below.

the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court has answered the

question in favour of the assessee. The relevant portion of the order of

the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced hereunder:

“8. We have heard counsel for the parties. 9. Taking into consideration the provisions of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act which reads as under:- 148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. (1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139 : Provided that in a case— (a) where a return has been furnished during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on the 30th day of September, 2005 in response to a notice served under this section, and

ITA 250/JP/2016_ 3 Pushpa Rajawat Vs ITO

(b) subsequently a notice has been served under sub-section (2) of section 143 after the expiry of twelve months specified in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 143, as it stood immediately before the amendment of said sub-section by the Finance Act, 2002 (20 of 2002) but before the expiry of the time limit for making the assessment, re-assessment or recomputation as specified in sub- section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice : Provided further that in a case— (a) where a return has been furnished during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on the 30th day of September, 2005, in response to a notice served under this section, and (b) subsequently a notice has been served under clause (ii) of sub- section (2) of section 143 after the expiry of twelve months specified in the proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143, but before the expiry of the time limit for making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice. 10. Since, the original proceedings were pending before the CIT(A), without entering into the question of jurisdiction of the Sawaimadhopur A.O., the fact remains that the adjudicating authority could not have issued second show cause notice U/s 148. In that view of the matter, without entering into the matter whether the Gwalior or the Sawaimadhopur, A.O. has jurisdiction or not, the second show cause is held to be not legal. 11. In that view of the matter, first issue is required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The second issue being consequential to first issue, the same is also to be answered in favour of the assessee. 12. Hence, both the issues are answered in favour of assessee and against the Department.”

Considering this fact, no penalty can be sustained. Hence appeal of the

assessee stands allowed.

ITA 250/JP/2016_ 4 Pushpa Rajawat Vs ITO 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12/12/2017.

Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 12th December, 2017 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Pushpa Rajawat, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The Ward-6(2), 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. 250/JP/2016) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत