ANIL SHARMA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(3), 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. 1479/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15
Ward-1(3),
Jaipur.
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BJQPS9717Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, C.A.
jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing

: 16/01/2025

mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 16/01/2025

vkns'k@ORDER

PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member

By way of present appeal, assessee has challenged order dated
15.10.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.
Vide impugned order, penalty order dated 23.06.2017 has been upheld.
Penalty order pertains to the assessment year 2014-15. Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the assessee due to violation of provisions of 2
Anil Sharma vs. ITO which require for maintaining of books of accounts, as provided u/s 44AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
2. Arguments heard. File perused.
3. Ld. AR for the appellant has contended that subsequently vide order dated 24.02.2022, the Assessing Officer has dropped the above said penalty proceedings, and as such present appeal be dismissed having become infructuous.

In the course of arguments, Learned AR has placed on record, copy of the subsequent order u/s 271A of the Act, passed by the Assessing
Officer on 24.02.2022. From the order dated 24.2.2022 it transpires that as regards the quantum proceedings and assessment order dated 22.12.2016, pertaining to the same assessment year i.e. 2014-15, the assessee had gone in appeal. That appeal No. 1/11623/2016-17 was allowed vide order dated
17.07.2019 thereby deleting addition of Rs. 4,95,438/- made in respect of the turnover.

Giving effect to the above said order dated 17.07.2019, passed u/s 250 of the Act, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 24.02.2022 deleted the said addition of Rs. 4,95,438/- arising out of the quantum proceedings related to the said addition of Rs. 4,95,438/-.

3
4. In view of the fact that the penalty proceedings and penalty order u/s 271 of the Act have already been dropped by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 24.02.2022, on the basis of order dated 17.07.2019, passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, present appeal is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous.

File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16/01/2025. ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½

¼ujsUnz dqekj½

(RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI)

(NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 16/01/2025
*Santosh
आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Sh. Anil Sharma, Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT

4
4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 1479/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत