Vijay Kumar Jain Vs ITO

Last updated: 02 December 2020

Save Share

Quick Summary

This appeal by Vijay Kumar Jain concerns a penalty imposed under Section 271A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee argued that the penalty was unlawful as they derived income solely from share derivative transactions, and the Assessing Officer had accepted the returned income. The assessee contended that they had maintained sufficient records as required by Section 44AA(2) and that there was no failure to justify the penalty. The tribunal decided the appeal based on written submissions as the assessee did not appear for the hearing.

Court :
ITAT Jaipur

Brief :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30th July, 2018 of ld. CIT (A), Ajmer arising from the penalty order passed under section 271A of the IT Act for the assessment year 2015-16. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing. Since the assessee has already filed the written submissions and paper book in this case, therefore, we proposed to decide this appeal on the basis of written submissions filed by the assessee as well as the arguments of the ld. D/R. The assessee has raised the following grounds :-

Citation :
ITA No. 1115/JP/2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH VC ’DB’, JAIPUR

BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

ITA No. 1115/JP/2018
Assessment Year : 2015-16.

Shri Vijay Kumar Jain,
24/131, Sand Building,
Babu Mohalla, Kaiser Ganj,
Ajmer.cuke PAN No. AARPJ 5018 Q
Appellant

Vs.

The Income Tax Officer,
Ward 1(2),
Ajmer.
Respondent

Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Ms Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Date of Hearing : 26.08.2020.
Date of Pronouncement : 07/09/2020.

ORDER
PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM :

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30th July,2018 of ld. CIT (A), Ajmer arising from the penalty order passed under section 271A of the IT Act for the assessment year 2015-16. None has appeared on behalf of theassessee when this appeal was called for hearing. Since the assessee has alreadyfiled the written submissions and paper book in this case, therefore, we proposed to decide this appeal on the basis of written submissions filed by the assessee as well as the arguments of the ld. D/R. The assessee has raised the following grounds :-

“ 1. That penalty under section 271A confirmed by ld. CIT (A) is bad in law and facts of the case as –

• Appellant derived income only from SHARES DERIVATIVETRANSACTIONS. Income of Rs. 2,30,036/- was returned by Appellant (in accordance with details of transactions,ledger accounts, bank statements, gain loss statements and contract notes, etc. provided by Broker – M/s.KOTAK SECURITIES). Ld. A.O. assessed income at Returned Figures vide Order under Section 143(3) dated 19.09.2017.

• Section 44AA(2) only mandates that every person shall‘keep and maintain such books of accounts and otherdocuments as may enable the A.O. to compute his total income in accordance with the provisions of law.’ The ld. AO’s apparent act of computing income at Returned Income figures is evidence of the approval and other documents by ld. A.O.

• As there was no failure of the nature described in Section 271A (read with Section 44AA) penalty under section 271A needs to be quashed.

2. That the appellant carves to add, amend and alter the ground of appeal before or at the time of appellate hearing.”

To more in details find the attachment file

FAQ :

The appeal concerns the validity of a penalty imposed under Section 271A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16.

The appellant is Shri Vijay Kumar Jain, and the respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Ajmer.

The assessee argued that the penalty was unlawful because their income was solely from share derivative transactions, the Assessing Officer accepted their returned income, and they had maintained the necessary books of account as per Section 44AA(2).

No, the assessee did not appear for the hearing.

The appeal was decided by the tribunal based on the written submissions filed by the assessee and the arguments presented by the Revenue's representative.