RAJANI BHATIA, Jaipur V. ITO Ward-6(1) Jaipur, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 245/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8473 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIR MANISH AGARWAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 245/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SMT. RAJNI BHATIA 4 THA 24, JAHAWAR NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAPPB 4247 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHIR MANISH AGARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MISS. CHANCHAL MEENA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 08/07/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09/07/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 10.12.2018 OF LD. CIT(A), AJMER ARISING FROM THE PE NALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. DUE TO PREVAILING COVID-19 PANDEMIC CONDITION THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL IS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE. THE ASSESSEE HA S RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ITA NO. 245/JP/2019 SMT. RAJNI BHATIA VS. ITO 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.1,64,670/- LEVIED BY LD. AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD. APPELLANT PRAYS ORDER SO PASSED IS NOT IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY I N RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.1,85,553/- ARBITRARILY. APPELLANT PR AYS THAT APPEAL IN RESPECT OF SUCH ADDITION WENT TILL ITAT AND WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A), WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN FAVOU R OF ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 17.11.2017 AND THEREFORE PENALTY I N RESPECT OF SUCH ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY I N RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 3,47,359/- CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE U/S 24(B). APPELLANT PRAYS THAT, INTEREST WAS INADV ERTENTLY CLAIMED ON THE HIGHER SIDE AND IN FACT AS SOON AS T HE MISTAKE WAS POINTED OUT BY LD.AO, ASSESSEE HIMSELF OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION, THUS PENALTY LEVIED IN RESPECT OF SUC H INTEREST DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT, HE CASE AND IN LAW, LD.CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.1,64,670/-WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THE FACT THAT MERE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM MADE BY ASSESSEE DO ES NOT IPSO FACTO TANTAMOUNTS TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNI SHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS THEREFORE P RAYED THAT PENALTY OF RS.1,64,670/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED. ITA NO. 245/JP/2019 SMT. RAJNI BHATIA VS. ITO 3 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR AND C ONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE EX- PARTE IMPUGNED ORDER AND CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENA LTY. THUS, THE LD. AR HAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN ONE M ORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HER CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS THE AS SESSEE HAVING A GOOD CASE ON MERITS. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS OPPOSED TO REQ UEST FOR GRANT OF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED 5 TO 6 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BUT NONE HAS ATTENDED ON ANY DATE OF HEARING. SHE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS D ISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SUMMARILY IN PARA 3.1 AS UND ER:- 3.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PENALTY ORDER CAREFULL Y. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED BY THE AO LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 1,64,670/- U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF 1,85,553/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 3,47,359/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALT Y OF RS. 1,64,670/- LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPEC T OF ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5,32,912/- MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. ITA NO. 245/JP/2019 SMT. RAJNI BHATIA VS. ITO 4 THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRME D THE LEVY OF PENALTY FOR WANT OF ATTENDANCE AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASONING AS TO HOW THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTS TO CONCEALMENT PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE EX-PA RTE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER THE MATTER IS SET ASI DE TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR GRANTING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HER CASE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/07/2020. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 09/07/2020. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. RAJNI BHATIA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) ITA NO. 245/JP/2019 SMT. RAJNI BHATIA VS. ITO 5 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 245/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR