MOHAN DASS CHELLANI,DUBAI vs. ITO WD 1(1), JPR, JAIPUR
1
आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA. No. 352/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYears : 2010-11
Ward-1 (1)
Jaipur
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AJQPC 0270 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kumar Jain, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT -DR a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 24/06/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 26 /06 /2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre,
New Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 30-12-2024 for the assessment year
2010-11 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty amounting to Rs.4,36,086/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act
]which was levied vide order dated 28.06.2018 by ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur [
for short AO].
2
CIT(A) and the said appeal was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by observing as under :
‘’9. The issues were considered. Relevant penalty order, statement of facts and grounds of appeal were carefully perused. After due consideration of all the facts available on record, the appellant's grounds are found to be untenable due to the fact that specific findings in the penalty order have not been controverted by the appellant along with corroborative evidences. The arguments advanced by the appellant in his statement of facts and grounds of appeal are also not supported by tangible materials. Accordingly, the appeal is being decided keeping in view the facts brought on record by the AO in the penalty order and by the appellant in the grounds of appeal, statement of facts
1 The appellant's contentions are not acceptable in the absence of written submission to substantiate its contentions made in the grounds of appeal and non submission of any material in the course of the appellate proceedings to controvert the findings in the penalty order by the AO to arrive at his decision on the issues.
2 Based on the facts mentioned above, and detailed discussion in the penalty order by the AO, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the AO on the issues raised in the grounds of appeal.
3 In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the decision of the AO and am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the AO. Hence, ground nos. 1 to 3 are found to be not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.
4 Ground no. 4 is general in nature and therefore does not require any adjudication.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 2.1 Feeling dissatisfied, the assessee preferred the present appeal challenging the finding of the ld. CIT(A). During the course of hearing, the Bench noted that there was delay of 06 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that in quantum
3
MOHAN DASS CHELLANI VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR appeal, the ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 19-11-2019 deleted the addition made by the AO and his total taxable income was determined to be below the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. He further submitted that the assessee was under bona fide belief that since the main appeal is allowed in his favour and then there would be no further proceedings. However, the delay of 06 days took place in filing the appeal as the assessee got the copy of the order of the ld. CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(c) on E-mail. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is NRI and he took time to collect the details / information and forward the same to the tax consultant. Hence, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed for condonation of delay. To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit as to the delay made in filing the appeal.
2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR did not object and submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case.
2.3
As regards the merits of the dispute Bench has heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. When the appeal decided by the ld. CIT(A) he observed that neither any submission on behalf of the assessee nor any material controverting the findings of the ld. AO was placed on record. Therefore, he confirmed the action of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,36,086/- by the ld. AO.
3.2
Record reveals that while dealing with the quantum addition by the ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 19-11-2019 restricted the addition to the tune of Rs.1,22,418/- only by giving following observation;
‘’(vi) Considering the above factual position, it is held that the taxable income of the appellant is Rs.1,22,418/- only. The AO is directed to restrict the income at Rs.1,22,418/- only.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.’’
The Bench further noted that the ITO Ward 7(3) has given appeal effect vide his order dated 22-06-2020 whose details are as under:-
‘’Consequent upon the order of CIT(A)-3, Jaipur vide appeal No. 1/10323/2018-
19 the total income of the assessee is recomputed as under:-
Total Income as per order u/s 144 dated 13-07-2018
Rs.21,78,959/-
Less:-i) Relief allowed CIT(A)-3, Jaipur
Rs. 20,56,541/-
Total income
Rs.1,22,418/-‘’
5
Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 271(1)© is not leviable in this case as the income survived is below the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and thereby the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 30-12-2024 does not survive and the appeal of the assessee is allowed based on these set of fact which were not controverted by the ld. DR.
4.0
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26 /06/2025. ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½
¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½
(Dr. S. Seethalakshmi)
(Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai)
U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 26 /06 /2025
*Mishra
आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Mohan Dass Chellani, Jaipur
izR;FkhZ@The Respondent- ITO, Ward- 7(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 5. xkMZQkbZy@Guard File {ITA No. 352/JPR/2025}
vkns'kkuqlkj@By order
सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत