POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

ITA 195/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals filed by Pooran Singh against the penalties imposed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-14, Bharatpur, which were confirmed by the CIT(A). The penalties were levied for non-furnishing of income tax returns, non-compliance with statutory notices, and concealment of income from share transactions amounting to Rs. 5,38,800 during the assessment year 2010-11. The Tribunal noted that the penalties were correctly imposed but allowed for their reconsideration in conjunction with the quantum proceedings, which were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717538 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL PANDYA
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance
• Section: 144; 143(3); 142(1); 271(1)(c); 139

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 Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pooran Singh 13 Saimar Ka Pura, Garhi Sukkha, Dholpur 328041 cuke Vs. ITO, Ward -4, Bharatpur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BIIPS6014H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rahul Pandya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 23/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These three appeals are filed by the above named assessee because assessee aggrieved with the finding so recorded by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A) ] for the assessment year 2010-11 and were disposed of on 13.12.2024 & 17.12.2024. The said order of the ld. CIT(A), arise as against the separate penalty order dated 19.06.2018, 26.06.2018 & 13.12.2024 passed under section 271F, 271(1)(c) & Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 Pooran Singh 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] by ITO, Ward-14, Bharatpur [ for short AO ]. 2. Since the issue raised in all the three appeals were identical were heard together and are disposed of by a common order by taking the fact of the case in ITA no. 194/JP/2025 as lead case. 3. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 194/JP/2025 on the following grounds; 1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority is bad in law, illegal and against facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in imposing the Penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. 3. That Order passed by CIT(A) is bad in law and decided the Appeal without issue of Notice. 4. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of hearing. 5. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3.1 In ITA No. 195/JP/2025, the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: 1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority is bad in law, illegal and against facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in imposing the Penalty of Rs. 58,525/-. 3. That Order passed by CIT(A) is bad in law and decided the Appeal without issue of Notice. 4. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of hearing. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 Pooran Singh 5. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3.2 In ITA No. 196/JP/2025, the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: 1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority is bad in law, illegal and against facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in imposing the Penalty of Rs. 10000/-. 3. That Order passed by CIT(A) is bad in law and decided the Appeal without issue of Notice. 4. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of hearing. 5. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 4. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee is an individual and the during the previous year relevant to A.Y 2010-11 the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26.12.2017 at a total income of Rs.5,38,800/- and penalty proceedings u/s. 271F of the Act were initiated upon the assessee on account of non- furnishing of return of income as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration and accordingly was levied for Rs. 5000/- against the assessee. The AO noticed that during the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued upon the assessee on 30.08.2017, however, the assessee failed to comply to the same nor filed Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 Pooran Singh any reply. In view of that fact, a show-case notice for completion of assessment u/s.144 of the Act was issued on 26.12.2017, however, the assessee again failed to comply to the aforesaid notice. As the assessee failed to comply to the notices issued from time to time, the assessment was completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26.12.2017 for the year under consideration and thereby also ordered to pay penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. As the assessment was made at Rs.5.38,800/- which exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and thereby the assessee was also ordered to pay penalty for an amount of Rs. 58,525/- as per provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from these different order for levy of penalty the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: Finding of ld. CIT(A) for penalty u/s. 271F of the Act “7. Decision: - I have carefully examined the penalty order passed by the AO, and other facts of the case available on record. 7.1. The appellant was engaged in the business of trading in shares on BSE platform and had failed to file the return of income for the year under consideration. The assessee during the assessment proceeding as well as during the penalty proceedings was provided with number of opportunities for furnishing the documentary evidences in support of his claim. However, the assessee was Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 Pooran Singh being provided several opportunities of being heard, but the assessee failed to submit the documentary evidences as asked for vide the notices issued from time to time. 7.2. Aggrieved with the penalty order passed by the AO, the appellant did not filed any submission or documentary evidences in respect of why the penalty should not be imposed. The appellant was afforded many opportunities to furnish the submission along with supporting documents in relation to the grounds of appeal. However the appellant did not bother to comply with any notice issued by this office. Further, if a person who is required to furnish a return of his income, as required under sub-section (1) of section 139 or by the proviso to that sub- section, failed to furnish such return before the end of the relevant assessment year, the AO may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of five thousand rupees. In view of this fact, I am not in a position to take a divergent view from the action of the AO. Therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271F of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,000/- by the AO is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, Ground No.2 and 3 is hereby dismissed. 8. Ground Nos. 1 and 4 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication as the same were already dealt in detail in above paragraphs. Accordingly, Ground No.1 and 4 are dismissed. 9. In a result the appeal is dismissed. Finding of ld. CIT(A) for penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act 4. DECISION: I have gone through and duly considered the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, penalty order of the AO and other facts of the case available on the record. 4.1. During the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act to the appellant calling for certain details in connection to the assessment proceedings. However the appellant did not bother to comply with any notice issued by the AO. Therefore the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (b) of the Act for failure to comply with statutory notices issued. During the penalty proceedings also, the appellant was non-compliant and hence the AO levied the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 4.2. The ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the appellant pertains to the single issue of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and the same is adjudicated as under.- Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 Pooran Singh 4.3. During the appellate proceedings also the assessee was issued a number of notices for submitting the information and documentary evidences in support of penalty proceedings initiated. However, the assessee failed to submit any reply and compliance to the notices issued from time to time. It can be noticed that during the assessment proceedings the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued and were not complied by the appellant. The assessee was issued show-cause notice, final letter in view of natural justice for submitting the information as called for vide the notices issued However, the assessee failed to comply to the notices. Further, notices were issued to the appellant during the penalty proceedings through the email ID available on the ITBA System and also through speed post. However the appellant did not respond to them. In view of this fact, the AO passed the penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act thereby levying penalty of Rs penalty order, the appellant filed the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) This means that the Rs 10,000/- Against this penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) of the passed by the AO TAX DEPARTS duly served to the appellant 4.4. Looking at the chronology of the events, it is clear that the notices issued by the AO were duly served on the appellant and the appellant failed to comply with these notices without any reasonable cause. The assessee did not submit any documentary evidences during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. In view of this fact, there is no need to take a divergent view from the AO. Therefore, I uphold the penalty order passed by the AO for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act and reject the contention of the appellant. Accordingly, Ground No.2 & 3 raised by the appellant are dismissed. Finding of ld. CIT(A) for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act 4. Decision:- I have carefully examined the penalty order passed by the AO, and other facts of the case available on record. 4.1. The appellant is an agriculturist and had failed to file the return of income for the year under consideration. The assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was completed on 26.12.2017. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted that the appellant had entered into share transactions of Rs.5,38,800/- on the BSE platform. However, the assessee was being provided several opportunities of being heard, but the assessee failed to submit the documentary evidences as asked for vide the notices issued from time to time. In view of this fact, the AO treated the amount of Rs.5,38,800/- as income from undisclosed Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 Pooran Singh sources under the head Short Term Capital Gain and levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.58,525/- for the year under consideration. 4.2. During the appellate proceedings it proceedings it was noticed that the assessee was being provided with number of opportunities of being heard. The assessee in its submission stated that the notices were being issued on issued on the wrong address and were received after the date of hearing due to which the assessee was not able to appear for hearing. As during the assessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings it is evident that the assessee failed to explain with proper documentary evidences that how the action of levy of penalty was erroneous or bad in law. Therefore I do not find any excuse to take a divergent view from the view of the AO. Hence I uphold the order of the AO wherein the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied at Rs.58,525/- was confirmed. Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 5. In a result the appeal is dismissed. 6. As the assessee did not find any favour, from the appeal so filed before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present three separate appeal before this Tribunal on the ground as reproduced hereinabove. To support the various grounds so raised by the assessee, ld. AR of the assessee, has filed the written submissions in respect of the various grounds raised by the assessee and the same is reproduced herein below: Submission of written submission for penalty u/s. 271F of the Act That the case of Humble Appellant was reopened on the basis of CIB Information available with the Department that the Humble Appellant had entered into share Transactions of Rs. 5,38,800.00 during the Financial Year 2009-10. That the Case U/s. 144 rws 147 was assessed on Dt 26-12-2017 wherein Additions on Account of STCG of Rs. 5,38,800 was made by the Learned Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 Pooran Singh Assessing Officer based upon the Order Dt 26-12-2017 the Learned Assessing Officer Levied Penalty U/s 271F of Rs. 5000/-. That the Notices issued on the Address “House No 13, Saimar Ka Pura, Village- Lalori, Teh- Bari, Dholpur” instead of “House No 13, Saimar Ka Pura, ,Garhi Sukkha, Teh- Bari, Dholpur” (Refer Bank Statements Page No 14-18 & Aadhar Card on Page No. 19). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals issued last Notice on 19-07-2022 for hearing Date 28-07-2022 & the humble Appellant submitted the Order passed by Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of Quantum Appeal & Copy of Bank Statement, but the Learned CIT(A) without considering the Reply & Passed the Decision on Dt 13-12-2024 ie after lapse of More than 2 years. That the Bank Statement have no such entry for sale /purchase of Share infact the same is incorrect reporting in the present case. Thus the Learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law & facts in Imposing the Penalty of Rs. 5,000.00 under section 271F of the Act. Relief claimed in appeal. The Appeal of the Appellant may please be accepted. Penalty Order Dated 19- 06-2018 and Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 13/12/2024 confirming the order of Assessing Authority may please be set aside and the Appeal by the Appellant may please be accepted. Any other order or relief which your honour deem fit and proper may please be granted. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority is bad in law, illegal and against facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in imposing the Penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. 3. That Order passed by CIT(A) is bad in law and decided the Appeal without issue of Notice. 4. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of hearing. 5. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 Pooran Singh Written Submission:- Reply to Ground No. 1 to 3 are as per below:- That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals issued last Notice on 19-07-2022 for hearing Date 28-07-2022 & the humble Appellant submitted the Order passed by Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of Quantum Appeal & Copy of Bank Statement, but the Learned CIT(A) without considering the Reply & Passed the Decision on Dt 13-12-2024 ie after lapse of More than 2 years(Refer Page No. 5-7 of Paper Book). That the Bank Statement have no such entry for sale /purchase of Share infact the same is incorrect reporting in the present case (Refer Page No. 14-18 of Paper Book). That the share Transactions of Rs. 5,38,800.00 is not reflected in Bank Statement during the Financial Year 2009-10, then how come shares can be sold on Stock Exchange, Thus, the penalty is levied on the basis of incorrect reporting (Refer Page No. 14-18 of Paper Book). Thus the Learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law & facts in Imposing the Penalty of Rs. 5,000.00 under section 271 F of the Act. Infact only interest income is therein bank Statement which is below taxable, thus no question of Filling of ITR arises in the present case. In view of the above, we request your honour to kindly accept the Appeal & Oblige.” Submission of written submission for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act That the case of Humble Appellant was reopened on the basis of CIB Information available with the Department that the Humble Appellant had entered into share Transactions of Rs. 5,38,800.00 during the Financial Year 2009-10. That the Case U/s. 144 rws 147 was assessed on Dt 26-12-2017 wherein Additions on Account of STCG of Rs. 5,38,800 was made by the Learned Assessing Officer. That the Notices issued on the Address “House No 13, Saimar Ka Pura, Village- Lalori, Teh- Bari, Dholpur” instead of “House No 13, Saimar Ka Pura, ,Garhi Sukkha, Teh- Bari, Dholpur” (Refer Bank Statements Page No 15-19 & Aadhar Card on Page No. 20. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals issued last Notice on 16-08-2022 for hearing Date 23-08-2022 & the humble Appellant submitted the Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 Pooran Singh Order passed by Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of Quantum Appeal & Copy of Bank Statement, but the Learned CIT(A) without considering the Reply & Passed the Decision on Dt 17-12-2024 ie after lapse of More than 2 years. That the Bank Statement have no such entry for sale / purchase of Share infact the same is incorrect reporting in the present case. Thus the Learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law & facts in Imposing the Penalty of Rs. 58,525.00 under section 271(1)(C ) of the Act. Relief claimed in appeal. The Appeal of the Appellant may please be accepted. Penalty Order Dated 26- 06-2018 and Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 17/12/2024 confirming the order of Assessing Authority may please be set aside and the Appeal by the Appellant may please be accepted. Any other order or relief which your honour deem fit and proper may please be granted. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority is bad in law, illegal and against facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in imposing the Penalty of Rs. 58,525/-. 3. That Order passed by CIT(A) is bad in law and decided the Appeal without issue of Notice. 4. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of hearing. 5. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. Written Submission:- Reply to Ground No. 1 to 3 are as per below:- That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals issued last Notice on 16-08-2022 for hearing Date 23-08-2022 & the humble Appellant submitted the Order passed by Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of Quantum Appeal & Copy of Bank Statement, but the Learned CIT(A) without considering the Reply & Passed the Decision on Dt 17-12-2024 ie after lapse of More than 2 years(Refer Page No. 6-8 of Paper Book). That the Bank Statement have no such entry for sale / purchase of Share infact the same is incorrect reporting in the present case (Refer Page No. 15-19 of Paper Book). Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 Pooran Singh That the share Transactions of Rs. 5,38,800.00 is not reflected in Bank Statement during the Financial Year 2009-10, then how come shares can be sold on Stock Exchange, Thus, the penalty is levied on the basis of incorrect reporting (Refer Page No. 15-19 of Paper Book). Thus the Learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law & facts in Imposing the Penalty of Rs. 58,525.00 under section 271(1)(C ) of the Act. In view of the above, we request your honour to kindly accept the Appeal & Oblige. Submission of written submission for penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act That the case of Humble Appellant was reopened on the basis of CIB Information available with the Department that the Humble Appellant had entered into share Transactions of Rs. 5,38,800.00 during the Financial Year 2009-10. That the Case U/s. 144 rws 147 was assessed on Dt 26-12-2017 wherein Additions on Account of STCG of Rs. 5,38,800 was made by the Learned Assessing Officer based upon the Order Dt 26-12-2017. That the Notices issued on the Address “House No 13, Saimar Ka Pura, Village- Lalori, Teh- Bari, Dholpur” instead of “House No 13, Saimar Ka Pura, ,Garhi Sukkha, Teh- Bari, Dholpur” (Refer Bank Statements Page No 15-19 & Aadhar Card on Page No. 20). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals issued last Notice on 16-08-2022 for hearing Date 23-08-2022 & the humble Appellant submitted the Order passed by Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of Quantum Appeal, but the Learned CIT(A) without considering the Reply & Passed the Decision on Dt 13- 12-2024 ie after lapse of More than 2 years. Thus the Learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law & facts in Imposing the Penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Relief claimed in appeal. The Appeal of the Appellant may please be accepted. Penalty Order Dated 19- 06-2018 and Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 13/12/2024 confirming the order of Assessing Authority may please be set aside and the Appeal by the Appellant may please be accepted. Any other order or relief which your honour deem fit and proper may please be granted. GROUNDS OF APPEAL Printed from counselvise.com 1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority is bad in law, illegal and against facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in imposing the Penalty of Rs. 10000/ 3. That Order passed by issue of Notice. 4. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of hearing. 5. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the Written Submission: Reply to Ground No. 1 to 3 are as per below: That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 16-08-2022 for hearing Date 23 Order passed by Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of Quantum Appeal & Copy of Bank Statement, but the Learned CIT(A) without considering the Reply & Passed the Decision on Dt 13 Page No. 5-8 of Paper Book). That the Noti Village-Lalori, Teh- ,Garhi Sukkha, Teh- Aadhar Card on Page No. 20). That as per profi 12 ITA Nos. 194 to 196 That order of Learned Assessing Authority is bad in law, illegal and against facts and circumstances of the case. That the learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in imposing the Penalty of Rs. 10000/-. That Order passed by CIT(A) is bad in law and decided the Appeal without That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. Written Submission:- Reply to Ground No. 1 to 3 are as per below:- That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals issued last Notice on 2022 for hearing Date 23-08-2022 & the humble Appellant submitted the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of Quantum Appeal & Copy of Bank Statement, but the Learned CIT(A) without considering the Reply & Passed the Decision on Dt 13-12-2024 ie after lapse of More than 2 years(Refer 8 of Paper Book). That the Notices issued on the Address “House No 13, Saimar Ka Pura, Bari, Dholpur” instead of “House No 13, Saimar Ka Pura, - Bari, Dholpur” (Refer Bank Statements Page No 15 Aadhar Card on Page No. 20). That as per profile of income tax portal is as under:- ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 Pooran Singh That order of Learned Assessing Authority is bad in law, illegal and That the learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in CIT(A) is bad in law and decided the Appeal without That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of Appeals issued last Notice on 2022 & the humble Appellant submitted the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of Quantum Appeal & Copy of Bank Statement, but the Learned CIT(A) without considering the Reply & 2024 ie after lapse of More than 2 years(Refer ces issued on the Address “House No 13, Saimar Ka Pura, Bari, Dholpur” instead of “House No 13, Saimar Ka Pura, Bari, Dholpur” (Refer Bank Statements Page No 15-19 & Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 Pooran Singh Thus the Learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law & facts in Imposing the Penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 under section 271 (1)(b) of the Act. In view of the above, we request your honour to kindly accept the Appeal & Oblige. 7. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S No Particulars Page No. 01. Copy of Acknowledgement of Reply submitted Before CIT (A)- 11-01- 2021 1 02. Copy of Acknowledgement of Reply submitted Before CIT (A)- 17-02- 2022 (submitted Copy of Order passed by Hon’ble Bench incase of Quantum Appeal) 2 03. Copy of Acknowledgement of Reply submitted Before CIT (A)- 28-07- 2022(submitted Copy of Order passed by Hon’ble Bench incase of Quantum Appeal & Bank Statements) 3-4 04. Copy of E- Proceedings Downloaded from Income Tax Portal U/s 271 F 5-7 05. Copy of Order Passed by Hon’ble ITAT Bench (Appeal No. ITA No. 134/JP/2019 8-13 06. Copy of Certificate from SBI & Bank Statements (01-04-2019 To 24- 11-2021) 14-18 07. Copy of Pan Card & Aadhar Card of Shri Pooran Singh 19 8. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that since the quantum proceeding is set aside the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) and that of 271F is required to be set aside to the file of the ld. AO. And as regards the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the reason for non compliance has resulted in best judgment of the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act and the assessee lives in a village. The address shown in the order with that of the address as per aadhar care is 3Km away and therefore, the Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 Pooran Singh assessee has reasonable cause for not attending the notices issued by the revenue. 9. Per contra, ld. DR relied upon the finding recorded in the order of the lower authority and at the same time did not dispute the fact that two penalty levied is to be decided based on the quantum remand proceeding which is pending. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted the issue of levy of penalty u/s. 271F and that of 271(1)(c) can only be decided if the assessee’s income is above the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and that of the 271(1)(c) if the assessee provide inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the particulars of income. Since the quantum proceeding is set aside to the file of the ld. AO. The ld. AO based on that finding decide the issue whether to levy the penalty u/s. 271F and that of 271(1)(c) be decided a fresh along with the quantum proceeding. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 194 & 195/JP/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. Now coming to the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 196/JP/2025 the bench noted that this penalty relates to the levy of penalty during the Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 Pooran Singh assessment proceeding as the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the assessing officer. Record reveals that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued upon the assessee on 30.08.2017, however, the assessee failed to comply with the same nor filed any reply. In view of that fact, a show-case notice for completion of assessment u/s.144 of the Act was issued on 26.12.2017, however, the assessee again failed to comply to the aforesaid notice. As the assessee failed to comply to the notices issued from time to time, the assessment was completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26.12.2017 for the year under consideration and thereby also ordered to pay penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The bench noted that in the quantum proceeding the co-ordinate bench has set aside the exparty assessment proceeding considering the fact that the address given was wrong and thereby the assessee was given an opportunity to represent the case on merits. The levy of penalty is also on the same reason that the address mentioned in the notices were not correct and thereby the impugned notice was not served. The assessee filed the correct address and stated that the address mentioned in the notice with that of the aadhar has distance of 3km. This statement made by the ld. AR of the assessee were not disputed by the ld. DR. The ld. DR was given time Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025 Pooran Singh upto 05.08.2025 after hearing the case of the assessee on 23.07.2025 but till today i.e. 12.08.2025 there is refutation on that statement made by the ld. AR of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the levy of penalty in the case of the assessee does not have leg to stand and thereby the same is directed to be deleted. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 194 & 195/JP/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and that of the appeal in ITA no. 196/JP/2025 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/08/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13/08/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Pooran Singh, Dholpur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-04, Bharatpur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 194 to 196/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "