PUNEET PANDEY, Jaipur V. ACIT, Alwar

ITA 513/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1974 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: K L MOOLCHANDAN I
• Section: 153A

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 VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 513/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08. SHRI PUNEET PANDEY, 1399, KHEJRON KA RASTA, CHANDPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: A LJPP 7293 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.L. MOOLCHANDANI, ADVOCATE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA, JCIT LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 26/10/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/11/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) (CENTRAL), JAIPUR DATED 22.03.2013. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN IMPOSING AND CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS. 26,872/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND LATEST INTER PRETATION OF LAW ON THE SUBJECT. THUS, THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED AND CO NFIRMED DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2 ITA NO. 513/JP/2013 A.Y. 2007-08. PUNEET PANDEY VS. ACIT, ALWAR. 2. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE I.T. ACT, AO FOUND THAT A CLAIM OF RS. 99,528/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME WAS NOT CORRECT. THE SAME WA S DISALLOWED. THE AO IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS. 26,872/- BY REJECTING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION. THE PENALTY WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT A LL THE PARTICULARS ABOUT THE CLAIM WERE MENTIONED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS, 322 I TR 158 (SC) IS FULLY APPLICABLE. ONCE THE PARTICULARS OF A CLAIM ARE MENTIONED IN THE RET URN OF INCOME, MERELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM IS NOT ALLOWED, IT DOES NOT LEAD TO PENALTY U /S 271(1)(C). 4. THE LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. I HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO HAS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE CLAIM AGAINS T HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME WAS MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREAFTER IT WAS DISAL LOWED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE REJECTION OF A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME C ANNOT LEAD TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AS HELD BY RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS LTD. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, PENALTY IS DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3/11/2015. SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (R.P.TOLANI) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER 3 ITA NO. 513/JP/2013 A.Y. 2007-08. PUNEET PANDEY VS. ACIT, ALWAR. TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 3/11/ 2015 DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI PUNEET PANDEY, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR. 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.513/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR