PANKAJ MISHRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1 (3), AJMER
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1498/JP/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14
Pankaj Mishra
726/28, Balupura Road Adarsh
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ANPPM5785Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sanjeev Jain, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing
: 24/02/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 26 /02/2025
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The assessee-appellant herein is feeling aggrieved by penalty proceedings relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16, initiated consequent upon issuance of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short
‘Act’) and confirmation of the penalty order by Learned CIT(A).
2. Vide order dated 16.03.2018, ITO, Ward 1(3), Ajmer levied penalty of Rs. 1,80,000/- while concluding that the assessee had intentionally
2
Pankaj Mishra vs. ITO concealed income of Rs. 5,77,600/- and thereby made himself liable for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. When the matter came up before Ld. CIT(A), by way of appeal against the penalty order, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal while confirming penalty of Rs. 1,80,000/-.
Arguments heard. File perused.
4. It may be mentioned here that as per record, the assessee also faced quantum proceedings relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. Assessment was completed on 08.12.2015 computing the income of the assessee at Rs. 18,56,420/- after making additions of Rs. 7,30,450/- on account of three additions i.e.
(1)
Addition on account of disallowance of deductions claimed out of incentive bonus and allowance to Development Officers for procuring business.
(2)
Addition of Rs. 4139/- on account of saving bank interest income not declared in the return of income.
3
(3) Addition of Rs. 2646/- on account of interest of income tax refund not declared by the assessee in the return of income.
5. It may be further mentioned that in the appeal preferred against assessment order, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the same by giving relief of Rs. 1,52,855/- as against the total addition of Rs. 7,32,441/- on account of disallowance of deductions claimed out of incentives bonus and allowance for procuring business.
6. Ld. AR for the appellant has raised only one legal ground i.e. in the notice u/s 274 of the Act issued on 08.12.2015 to the assessee, the Assessing Officer did not specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and as such penalty order deserves to be set aside.
7. A perusal of notice u/s 274 of the Act, copy available at page No. 5 of paper book submitted before us, would reveal that it was issued alleging violation of provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Assessing Officer mentioned in the notice that the assessee had “concealed particular of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”.
4
8. Herein, as noticed above, Assessing Officer in the relevant column of the notice dated 08.12.2015 mentioned both the limbs of section 271(1)© of the Act i.e. “concealed particular of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income”.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26/02/2025. ¼xxu xks;y ½
¼ujsUnz dqekj½
(GAGAN GOYAL)
(NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 26/02/2025
*Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Pankaj Mishra, Ajmer
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 1(3), Ajmer
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A)
5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1498/JP/2024)
6
Pankaj Mishra vs. ITO vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत