SHRI RAHUL BHAT,JAMMU vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), JAMMU

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Hearing: 13.10.2022Pronounced: 19.10.2022

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

I.T.A. No.522/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Sh. Rahul Bhat 12-B, Vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Dreamlands Coop. Housing Jammu. Society Ltc. Sector 1, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, [PAN: AFZPB1564Q] (Respondent) (Appellant)

Appellant by None. Respondent by Sh. S.M. Surendra Nath, Sr.DR

Date of Hearing 13.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2022

ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM:

The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Jammu, [in brevity the CIT(A)] bearing appeal No.252/2015-16, date of order 17.08.2018, the order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2005-06.The impugned

I.T.A. No.522/Asr/2018 2 Assessment Year: 2005-06

order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2),

Jammu, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act, date of order

13.08.2015.

The brief fact of the case is that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3)

and against the order of assessment appeal was filed. The assessee challenged the quantum appeal before the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, bearing ITA No. 517/Asr/2014 date of order 17.05.2019. The ITAT, Amritsar Benchhad taken the issue and

passed the order.As per the order of ITAT, the disputed amount of Rs.9 lac for the

assessment year 2005-06 was set aside to the ld. AO for further adjudication. The

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied on the basis of assessment order passed u/s

143(3). The penalty order was challenged before the appellate authority and the

appellate authority had upheld the order ld.AO.

Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

During appeal proceeding none was present on behalf of the assessee. The

matter is taken up with the consent of the ld. Sr. DR for adjudication.

We heard the submission of the ld. Sr. DR and thoughtfully considered the

order of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench and orders of both the revenue authorities. The

only dispute is related to cash payment for purchase of property related to Rs.9 lac

for the assessment year under appeal. Considering the assessment order the penalty

I.T.A. No.522/Asr/2018 3 Assessment Year: 2005-06

was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). But the ITAT, Amritsar Bench bearing ITA No. 517/Asr/2014 date of order 17.05.2019 hasset aside the issue before the ld. AO. Accordingly, the quantum order of assessment is not sustained. In this point of time the penalty order passed by the ld. AO on basis the quantum order is non-est. 5.1 The ld. Sr. DR has only relied on the order of both the revenue authorities. 5.2. Accordingly, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) passed by the ld. AO amount of Rs.3,03,597/- is quashed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 522/Asr/2018 is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.10.2022 Sd/- Sd/-

(Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T.

SHRI RAHUL BHAT,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), JAMMU