Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC
Before: SHRI BHAGCHANDvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 76/JP/2017
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 76/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Chiranji Panwari Ki Gali, Ward-1, Sikar. Sikar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADIPA 5507 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gangieya (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 03/03/2017 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 06/03/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 05/10/2016 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-35, New Delhi/Camp office at Jaipur for the A.Y. 2009-10, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The impugned penalty order U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 08/23.05.2012 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of
ITA 76/JP/2017_ 2 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs ITO
jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be quashed.
The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard and in confirming the imposition of the penalty completely without application of mind and in a haste which was in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and hence, such an order of the ld. CIT(A) be quashed or alternatively, kindly be restored to his file for a decision afresh thereon.
Rs. 1,93,590/-:- The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the imposing a penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 1,93,590/-. The penalty so imposed by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be deleted in full.”
The main issue involved in this appeal is against confirming the
penalty of Rs. 1,93,590/- made U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The AR of the assessee has
submitted a prayer for modification of the grounds. However, the ld.
Sr.DR has submitted that this is not a modification of ground but the
assessee is taking a new ground in the form of ground No. 5, which can
only be taken by submitting an application for additional ground.
ITA 76/JP/2017_ 3 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs ITO
I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties on the issue
of modified grounds and perused the material available on the record.
After considering all the facts and circumstances, I fully concur with the
submission of the ld. Sr.DR that ground No. 5 taken by the assessee is
an additional ground not a modified ground. In absence of any
application for additional ground, prayer of the assessee for
modification of the grounds is not maintainable, hence, the same is
hereby dismissed.
The only issue remains to be decided is the merit of the levy of
penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR of the assessee has
submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was on tour i.e. in the camp office at
Jaipur and no proper and effective opportunity of hearing was given to
the assessee, therefore, opportunity for hearing may be granted and
the issue may be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). Ld. Sr. DR
opposed the submissions of the ld. AR for setting aside the issue to the
file of ld. CIT(A).
I have heard both the sides on this issue and perused the
material available on the record. It is noticed that the order made by
the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order. The ld. CIT(A) was on tour to Jaipur
and the circumstances suggest that the assessee was deprived of
ITA 76/JP/2017_ 4 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs ITO proper and adequate opportunity of being heard, therefore I am of the
view that, in the interest of justice, it will be fair and just to restore the
issue in appeal to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The ld. CIT(A)
shall provide proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the
assessee. Accordingly, this issue is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06/03/2017.
Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06th March, 2017 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Sikar. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-1, Sikar. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 76/JP/2017) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत