RAJU SARAF, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 488/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99476 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA CIT DR DHK

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH IH-DS-CALY] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 488/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI RAJU SARAF 701, PEAL AKSHITA, TILAK NAGAR JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ACIT CIRCLE- 4 JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ALWPS 4735 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SHRI O.P. BHATEJA, ADDL.CIT -DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 06/11/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 /11/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, AM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 27-02-2015 RELATING TO SUSTENANCE OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 7.40 LACS. 2.1 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, I THER EFORE, DECIDED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. I NOTED THAT I N THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION ABOUT CASH DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 69A OF THE ACT OUT OF WHICH RS. 5.00 LACS REPRESENT ADDITIONAL INCOME ITA NO.488 /JP/2015 SHRI RAJU SARRAF VS. ACIT CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR 2 SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOR THE BALANCE SUM ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY GIVEN EXPLANATION WHICH IS APPARENT IN THE PEN ALTY ORDER AND IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTIC ULARS OF THE INCOME. IT IS THE CASE WHERE THE PARTICULARS OF THE ASSESSEE H AVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. NON-ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE IN MY OPINION, CANNOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE AUTOMATICALLY LIABLE FOR P ENALTY. I THEREFORE, DELETE THE PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,68,885/- LEVI ED BY THE AO. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/11/2 015. SD/- IH IHIH IH- -- -DS DSDS DS- -- -CALY CALY CALY CALY (P.K. BANSAL) YS[KK YS[KK YS[KK YS[KK LNL;@ LNL;@ LNL;@ LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 06/11/ 2015 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAJU SARRAF, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 4, , JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 488/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR