KANTA PRASAD SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(1), JAIPUR
आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No.1262 & 1272/JP/2024
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2010-11
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: DFRPS 6798 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Ashish Khandelwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 11/02/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 12 /02/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two different orders of the ld. CIT(A) dated 16.08.2024 & 13.08.2024, National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2010-11 in the matter of Section 147/144 and 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively.
2
In ITA No. 1262/JP/2024, the assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:-
‘’1. That the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in dismissing the appeal without effecting proper service of hearing of notice and thereby violated fundamental principles of natural justice.
2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts of the case in upholding the addition of Rs.24,06,950/- without directing the AO to file remand report on merits of the case.
3. That the ld CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal very casually and light heartedly and on stereotyped basis, inasmuch, incarnated facts of penalty appeal on the body of appellate order.’’
2 In ITA No. 1272/JP/2024, the assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- ‘’1. That the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts of the case in confirming the penalty imposed by AO to the tune of Rs.6,44,870/- without even appreciating that quantum appeal was pending. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts of the case in turning blind eye to the meticulous submission filed by the appellant and settled jurisprudence on the issue. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in affording reasonable opportunity of being heard.’’
3 Apropos ground of appealin ITA No. 1262/JP/2024, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing at para 5 of his order as under:-
Observation and decision:- I have carefully gone through the statement of facts, grounds of appeal and details furnished by the appellant.
1 In this case, the appellant, individual, sold immovable property amounting to Rs. 16,00,000/- on 05.11.2009 which was valued by the sub-