Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order upholding a penalty order for the assessment year 2014-15. The penalty was imposed for violating provisions related to maintaining books of accounts under Section 44AA of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had dropped the penalty proceedings and the penalty order itself, based on a prior appellate order that deleted a significant addition related to turnover. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal is infructuous due to the subsequent dropping of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
44AA, 271A, 250, 271
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
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 Sh. Anil Sharma Cuke The ITO, Vs. 23, Tripolia Bazar, Ward-1(3), Jaipur. 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 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”).
Arguments heard. File perused.
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/-.
Anil Sharma vs. ITO Admittedly, the penalty proceedings which led to levy of penalty were initiated, on account of violation of provisions of section 44AA of the Act. With dropping of the penalty proceedings, this appeal filed by the assessee has become infructuous. Result 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. Sd/- Sd/- 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 The Appellant- Sh. Anil Sharma, Jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत