vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” JAIPUR JhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkb]Z ys[kk lnL; ,oJa hujsUnzdqekj] U;kf;dlnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihyl-a@ITA No. 1323 & 1324/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Ravi Kumar Rawat cuke The DCIT

2238, Johari Bazar, Jaipur – 302 003 Vs. Circle-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk l-a@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AATPR 5739A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Saurav Harsh, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenueby:Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C).

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 20/03/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 28/04/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER : RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-4, Jaipur [ for short CIT(A) ] dated 11-09-2024 & 12-09-2024 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. Both the appeals of the assessee relates to the issue of levy of penalty under the provision of section 271(1) (c ) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [ for short Act ]raising therein following grounds of appeal;

ITA No. 1323/JPR/2024 – A.Y. 2008-09 ‘’1. That in law and in the factsand circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A)grossly erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.1,03,150/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.’’

ITA No. 1324/JPR/2024 – A.Y. 2009-10 ‘’1. That in law and in the factsand circumstances of the case the learned Lower Authority grossly erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.1,03,150/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.’’

2.1 First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee for adjudication the assessment year 2008-09 wherein the facts of the case as mentioned in the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c )of the Act are that the assessee filed his return of income on 22-09-2008 for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring a total income at Rs.3,51,880/-. Assessment in this case was completed u/s 148/143(3) of the Act vide order dated 25-01-2016 determining total income at Rs.9,53,340/- as detailed herein below :

In that assessment order ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)©

vide notice dated 25-01-2016.

2.2 Assessee challenged that order of assessment before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly considered by ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal No. 474/2015-16. Vide that order ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs.6,01,459/- to Rs. 2,67,647/- by applying G.P. Rate @ 12%. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,67,647/- was sustained by the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, ld. AO passed penalty order dated 01-05-2020 wherein the AO imposed the penalty on the assesseefor an amount of Rs. 1,03,150/- u/s 271(1)(c )

of the Act by observing as under:-

‘’4….Here in the present case, the A/R has failed to offer any concrete explanation about the impugned ‘’furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’’ to the tune of Rs.2,67,647/-.

05. In view of totality of the facts and keeping in view the provisions of Section 271(1)© , the assessee is found guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs.2,67,647/-. For that reason, I am satisfied that ‘’Assessee’’ has committed default u/s 271(1)( c) of theI.T. Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)( c) is imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as per working given below:-

Calculation of penalty imposable Income furnished inaccurately Rs.2,67,647/- Tax sought to be evaded Rs.1,03,148/ Minimum penalty imposable @ 100% Rs.1,03,148/- Maximum penalty imposable @ 300% Rs.3,09,444/-

Hence, penalty of Rs.1,03,150/- is imposed u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after taking necessary approval from Addl. CIT, Range-2, Jaipur.’’

2.3 Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee carried the m