Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji
Shantilal Pincha, Jaipur vs Acit, Jaipur on 22 June, 2017
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 361/JP/2017
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10.
Sh. Shantilal Pincha, cuke The ACIT,
Picha Ka Bas, Sardarshahr, Vs. Circle-Jhunjhunu,
District- Churu. Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. ABDPP 7214 P
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 19.06.2017.
?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2017
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.
This Appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-35, New Delhi/Camp Office at Jaipur, dated 05/10/2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on fact and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,21,100/- u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal.
3. The appropriate cost be awareded to the assessee."
2. Briefly stated the facts are that, the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide order dated 2 ITA No. 361/JP/2017 Sh. Shantilal Pincha, Churu.
16/12/2011. While framing the assessment, the AO made addition of Rs. 5,30,000/- on account of difference between the sale consideration has disclosed by the assessee and adopted by this Stamp Evaluation Authority. The AO, on this issue also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was subsequently imposed vide order dated 22/6/2012.
3. Against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). On the date of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Against this, the assessee has preferred the present appeal.
4. Only effective ground in this appeal is confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions and also placed reliance on the decision of Co- ordinate Bench rendered in the case of Anita Beniwal Vs. ITO in ITA no. 743/JP/2012 and also judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Madan Teatres Ltd. 88 DTR 0217(Cal).
4.1 On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representatives opposed the submissions.
4.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. We find that, before the Ld. CIT(A) there was no Representatives on behalf of the assessee on various dates. Therefore, in the absence of the assessee, the appeal was dismissed. After considering the totality of the fact, we deem it proper to restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh in the interest 3 ITA No. 361/JP/2017 Sh. Shantilal Pincha, Churu.
of justice. The assessee would cooperate by filing the details if any, before the Ld. CIT(A). This ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 6 In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 361/JP/2017 is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on Thursday, the 22nd day of June 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
( HkkxpUn ½ ( dqy Hkkjr)
( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT )
ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Jaipur
Dated: 22/06/2017
Pooja/
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs "kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant- Sh. Shantilal Pincha, Picha Ka Bas, Sardarshahr, Churu.
2. The Respondent - The ACIT, Circle- Jhunjhunu, Jaipur.
3. The CIT(A).
4. The CIT,
5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. Guard File (ITA No. 361/JP/2017) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar