MADAN LAL SHARMA,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against the penalty orders for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The penalty for AY 2017-18 was Rs. 2,90,481/- under Section 271AAC(1), and for AY 2018-19, it was Rs. 95,010/- under Section 271AAV(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had upheld these penalty orders.
Held
The tribunal noted that separate appeals concerning the quantum proceedings for the same assessment years had already been set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision. Consequently, the penalty orders also deserve to be set aside for fresh consideration after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty orders should be upheld when the related quantum proceedings have been set aside and restored for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
271AAC(1), 271AAV(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,” B”-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 186 & 187/JPR/2024
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,” B”-Bench” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh 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. 186 & 187/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Madan Lal Sharma cuke ITO, 01, Gudha Katla Road, Shiv Colony, Vs. Ward, Bandikui, Dausa. Dausa. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: CLZPS6416C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing :20/06/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024
vkns'k@ORDER PER BENCH:
The above captioned two appeals have been filed challenging order dated 04.01.2024 passed by Learned CIT(A), as thereby penalty order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer, in relation to assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 has been upheld. As regards the assessment year 2017-18, Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 2,90,481/- u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
2 ITA No. 186 &187/JPR/2024 Sh. Madan Lal Sharma vs. ITO As regards the assessment year 2018-19, Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 95,010/- U/s 271AAV(1) of the Act. 2. It may be mentioned here that two separate appeals i.e. ITA No. 165 & 166/JPR/2024 filed by the assessee as regards the quantum proceedings relating to the same assessment years, have been disposed of today. Therein, the order passed by Learned CIT(A) as regards quantum proceedings relating to the same assessment years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 have been set aside, and the matters have been restored to the files of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee, of being heard. 3. Once the orders passed by Learned CIT(A), upholding the assessment orders as regards quantum proceedings, have been set aside, the penalty orders also deserve to be set aside, for decision afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee, of being heard, as regards each assessment year. 4. In the given situation, both these appeals are also disposed of for statistical purposes and while setting aside the impugned orders passed by Learned CIT(A) and also the penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer, particularly when the Assessing Officer shall have to proceed in
3 ITA No. 186 &187/JPR/2024 Sh. Madan Lal Sharma vs. ITO accordance with law, firstly by deciding the quantum proceedings in respect of each assessment year, and that too in accordance with law. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/06/2024. 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:- 21/06/2024 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Sh. Madan Lal Sharma, Dausa. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward, Dausa. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 186 &187/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत
