LATE JAGDISH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(1), JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1437/JP/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2007-08
Late Jagdish
Though L/H Chajju Ram
98 Pujari Mohalla,
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AXZPJ7922L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rohan Sogani, C.A jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing
: 09/09/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
By way of present appeal, the legal heirs of the above-named assessee challenges the order of the learned Commissioner of Income
Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short CIT(A)] dated
30/09/2024 which relates to the assessment year 2007-08. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee challenged the order of levy
2
Late Jagdish of penalty dated 01.03.2017 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur
[ for short AO].
2. The present appeal is on the following grounds: -
“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, has erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in levying penalty of Rs. 81,842/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the penalty levied by ld. AO and confirmed by ld.
CIT(A)/NFAC.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without specifically pointing out specific limb of the section. The action of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c).
The assessee craves his rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.
Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that in this case in the quantum proceeding while passing the assessment order ld. AO made two additions, one was on account of unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 3,80,000 and another was for Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs. 14,62,758. Based on that set of facts a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was passed on 01.03.2017 ordering to pay penalty of Rs. 3,96,929. 3 Late Jagdish
When that order was challenged before the ld. CIT(A), he directed to delete the penalty amount to the extent of an addition of Rs. 14,62,758/- and sustained the levy of penalty of on addition of Rs. 3,80,000/-. The relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under ; 5. Adjudication; it was submitted during appeal proceedings that the appellant, Shri Jagdish died on 08.02.2018. Death certificate enclosed. Shri Chhaju Ram was substituted as legal heir through a separate application in this regard. The appellant raised additional ground that the ld. AO has erred in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without specifically pointing out specially limb of the section. However, in this case there are two kinds of additions. Cash deposits in bank account were added as unexplained income. In this addition concealment of income is involved. The appellant also tried to camouflage capital gains from sale of immovable property as agricultural property sale. In this matter the appellant furnished inaccurate particulars of income from capital gains. Hence, in this case penalty was proposed for both "Concealment of Income" and for "Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income". Hence the AO initiated penalty proceedings for the charges of concealment and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As a result, the additional ground raised during appeal proceedings is dismissed.
1 The CIT(A) and ITAT sustained additions of Rs.3,80,000 on unexplained cash deposits. It is clear from case records that the appellant could not substantiate the source of such deposits in his bank account in assessment or appeal proceedings. The onus is entirely on the appellant to satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposits and the appellant has completely failed to do so. Hence, it is held that the appellant has concealed particulars of the income. So the penalty levied by AO on cash deposits of Rs.3,80,000 is hereby sustained.
2 Regarding immovable property, the Sub