Avail 20% discount on updated CA lectures for Dec 21 .Use Code RESULT20 !! Call : 088803-20003

ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Vijay Kumar Jain Vs ITO

LinkedIn


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
 

 

Guest
on 02 December 2020
Published in Income Tax
Views : 16
downloaded 11 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags