REKHA RAM JAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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. 1135/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2006-07 cuke Rekha Ram Jat, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Village & Post Nimeda, Ward 7(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AURPR 3768 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri G.M. Mehta (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Raj Mehra lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 27/02/2017 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 27/02/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 13/10/2016 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-35, New Delhi/Camp office at Jaipur for the A.Y. 2006-07. The only issue involved in this appeal is levying the penalty of Rs. 1.50 lacs made U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and confirming the same by the ld. CIT(A) by passing an ex parte order on 13/10/2016.

ITA 1135/JP/2016_ 2 Rekha Ram Jat Vs ITO

agriculturist and lives in a village. The assessment was completed by the

Assessing Officer U/s 144 of the Act vide order dated 22/12/2008, in which

the Assessing Officer assessed total undisclosed income of Rs. 60.50 lacs,

for which, the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated. Thereafter, in

the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) had reduced the addition to Rs. 8,02,942/-,

which was upheld by the Hon’ble ITAT vide order dated 20/04/2012 passed

in ITA No. 525/JP/2011. It is pertinent to note that this income was to be

assessed under the head ‘capital gain’. The penalty of Rs. 1.50 lacs was

levied for concealing the particulars of capital gain income to the tune of

Rs. 8,02,942/-. However, from the order of the ld. CIT(A), it is noticed that

he has affirmed the levy of penalty for an ex parte order.

this Bench.

I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves a fresh hearing of

appeal at the level of ld. CIT(A) for levying of penalty. The addition was

made by the Assessing Officer for undisclosed income of Rs. 60.50 lacs

deposited in the bank account and penalty was initiated,. But the ld. CIT(A)

has been substantially reduced the addition and also head of income in the

ITA 1135/JP/2016_ 3 Rekha Ram Jat Vs ITO quantum appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, I restore

this issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh in

accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to

the assessee. Accordingly, this issue is restore to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

purposes only.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/02/2017.

Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 27th February, 2017 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Rekha Ram Jat, Nimeda, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 7(2), Jaipur. 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. 1135/JP/2016) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत