Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Kothari Jewels P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit, Jaipur on 26 March, 2018
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe 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. 870/JP/2016
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10
M/s Kothari Jewels Private Limited cuke The DCIT,
5th Floor, KGK Tower, Dutta Pada Vs. Central Circle-2,
Road, Near Ekta Bhoomi Garden, Jaipur.
Rajendra Nagar, Borivali (East)
Mumbai-66.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCA 2717 Q
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@
s Assessee by : Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.) &
Shri R.K. Bhatra (C.A.)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 22/03/2018
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 26/03/2018
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.07.2016 of ld. CIT(A), Jaipur arising from the penalty order passed passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds:-
ITA No. 870/JP/2016
M/s Kothari Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs.DCIT "1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had erred in law and on fact and in the circumstances of the case in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs 4,00,000/- under section 271(1)(c) for the difference in returned income, filed under section 153A vis-a-vis 139(1).
2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify all or any of the above Grounds of appeal or add a new Ground of appeal, as deemed necessary, at or before the time of hearing.
It is prayed that the above Grounds of appeals may be decided by the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. The appellant also prays that the learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) has passed cryptic order without property appreciating the written submissions of the appellant."
The assessee has also raised an additional ground which reads as under:-
" 2. That the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Learned Assessing Officer imposing penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- is wrong and bad in law in as much as no notice was issued/served on the Appellant for initiation of penalty proceedings alongwith assessment order dated 31-3-2013 issued under section 153A/143(3)."
2. The additional ground raised by the assessee is regarding the validity of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without issuing a notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. We have heard the ld. AR as well as the ld. DR and considered the relevant material on record on admission of additional ground. There is no quarrel that the additional ground is legal in nature and 2 ITA No. 870/JP/2016 M/s Kothari Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs.DCIT goes to the root of the matter. We further note that the AO in the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has stated that the penalty proceedings were initiated vide show cause notice dated 31.03.2013. However, there was a change of the Assessing officer and therefore, another notice was issued on 09.09.2013. In response to that the representative of the assessee appeared before the AO and filed written submissions. Thus, it is clear that the assessee has participated in the proceeding before the AO. Since, the assessee has now questioned the jurisdiction of the AO to pass the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that no notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was issued by the AO. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case when this objection has been raised by the assessee for the first time and it requires verification of the assessment record therefore, we admit this additional ground and set aside the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer to consider this objection of the assessee as raised in the additional ground and then decide the matter as per law. Needless to say the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order on this issue.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
3ITA No. 870/JP/2016
M/s Kothari Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs.DCIT Order pronounced in the open court on 26/03/2018 Sd/- Sd/-
¼foØe flag ;kno½ ¼fot; iky jko½
(Vikram Singh Yadav) (Vijay Pal Rao)
ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 26/03/2018.
*Santosh.
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s Kothari Jewels Private Limited, Borivali (East) Mumbai.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT. Central Circle-2, Jaipur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur.
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 870/JP/2016} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar 4