JAIRAJ SINGH SOLANKI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh euh"k cksjkM] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 153/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Jairaj Singh Solanki cuke ITO Vs. 5/63, SFS, Agrawal Farm, Ward-2(4), Jaipur. Mansarowar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AWCPS8587N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 27/03/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 28/03/2024 vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: MANISH BORAD, AM This appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 24.01.2024 [Here in after referred as “CIT(A)/NFAC”] for the assessment year 2017-18, which in turn arise from the order dated 05.08.2021passed under section 272A(1(d) of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as “Act” ] by the AO.
Sole grievance of the assessee raised in the grounds of
2 ITA No. 153/JPR/2024 Jairaj Singh Solanki vs. ITO appeal is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act levied by the Assessing Officer for not complying to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act.
At the outset, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee earns his living by working as a taxi driver and he is an illiterate person. The assessee had furnished the return of income on 15.08.2017 declaring income of Rs. 2,50,040/- and during the course of limited scrutiny proceedings, the assessee has responded on two occasions but his submission has not been considered. However, the penalty has been levied for not complying with another show cause notice for which the assessee was not at all aware and thus prayed that the assessee deserves immunity from levy of penalty by virtue of section 273B of the Act. 4. On the other hand, Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record before us. The penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been levied u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act for non compliance to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 03.12.2019. We observe that assessee filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y.
3 ITA No. 153/JPR/2024 Jairaj Singh Solanki vs. ITO 2017-18 on 15.08.2017 declaring income of Rs. 2,50,040/- and is earning income from running taxi/car hiring business. After the case being selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason of, “credit card payments”, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act during served upon the assessee. The Revenue authorities alleged that the assessee has failed to appear for the final show cause notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act on 03.12.2019. We however, notice that in the present case the assessee has filed certain details during the assessment proceedings. Our attention was drawn to the various notices by e-proceedings. We find that the assessee filed details online on 10.06.2019 and 02.07.2019 and as alleged by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in its written submission that the ld. AO has not considered these details before completing the assessment proceedings. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that the assessee had made certain compliance by filing the details but on one occasion he has not appeared and for such non appearance the reason mentioned is that the assessee was not aware about the date of hearing fixed by notice dated 03.12.2019. Considering the fact that the assessee is a taxi driver and has to work regularly for earning bread and butter and also the assessee not being well educated and therefore, not aware of
4 ITA No. 153/JPR/2024 Jairaj Singh Solanki vs. ITO the technical charges recently introduced in the Income Tax e- proceedings, it is quite possible that without having any mensrea the assessee failed to appear.
Under these facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view the assessee deserves immunity from levy of alleged penalty by u/s 273B of the Act, which provides that no penalty shall be impossible for failure referred in the said provisions which includes the alleged failure, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. We therefore, observing that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the said failure, set aside the finding of ld. CIT(A) and delete the impugned penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/03/2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ euh"k cksjkM ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Manish Borad) U;kf;d lnL;@Judcial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 28/03/2024 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Jairaj Singh Solanki, Jaipur.
5 ITA No. 153/JPR/2024 Jairaj Singh Solanki vs. ITO 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-2(4), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 153/JPR/2024} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत
