SHRI KHANIYA LAL KHATOR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-5, JAIPUR

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the ld. CIT(A), Alwar dated 30-01-2019 and 25-02-2019 for the assessment year 2009-10 in the matter of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act and Section 271F of the Act. 2.1 The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in the respective appeals.

2. That the Assessing Officer grossly erred in law and facts in imposing the penalty of Rs.10,000/-.

3. That further submission in support of appeal shall be made at the time of hearing.’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any written submission has been filed. Hence, the Bench decided to dispose off the above appeals based on the materials available on record. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A) in both the appeals. 2.4 Apropos appeal of the assessee relating to penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, the observation made by the ld. CIT(A) is as under:-

3 KAHNIYA LAL KHATOR S ITO, WARD 3(5), JAIPUR ‘’5.3 I have perused the penalty order as well as submission made by the appellant. The notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 22-04- 2016 and served. However, no compliance was made. Therefore, AO is justified in levying penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is sustained and appellant’s ground of appeal on the issue is dismissed.’’ 2.5 Apropos appeal of the assessee relating to penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F of the Act, the observation made by the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- ‘’5.3 I have perused the penalty order as well as submission made by the appellant. On facts and circumstances, when the appellant had sold a land property during the year under consideration, then he should have filed a return of income. The AO has rightly imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/- of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F of the Act is sustained and the appellant’s ground of appeal on the issue is dismissed.’’ 2.6 After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noticed that the assessee was neither present on the date of hearing nor any evidence/ supporting material was provided to controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in both the penalty appeals (supra). In this view of the matter, the Bench has no other alternative except to sustain the penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b)

4 KAHNIYA LAL KHATOR S ITO, WARD 3(5), JAIPUR and Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F of the Act which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in respective appeals. Thus both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.. 3.0 Order pronounced in the open court on 07 /12/2022.

Sd/- ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (Sandeep Gosain) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 07/12/2022 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Shri Kahniya Lal Khator, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 3 (5), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 410 & 411/JP/2019) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,