##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.1097/JPR/2026 (Assessment Year:2019-20)

Bajrang Lal Jangir Vs. ACIT Kalani & Co LLP Central Circle 4

Chartered Accountants, 5^th Jaipur Floor Milestone Building,

Gandhinagar Turn Tonk Road, Jaipur

(cid:830)थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AUUPS 3458 G Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. P.C. Parwal, CA Respondent by : Mrs. Arti Rawat, JCIT

Date of Hearing 09.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement 14.09.2026

O R D E R

Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:-

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal CIT(A) Jaipur 05 (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 20.03.2026 confirming the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax

Page | 2 ITA No.1097/JPR/2026 Bajrang Lal Jangir

Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for underreporting/misreporting of income.

2. The grounds raised read as under:-

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that when addition is made by AO u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, initiation & imposition of penalty u/s 270A of

the Act is illegal, bad in law and be quashed.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the validity of initiation of penalty proceedings in as much as penalty proceeding u/s 270A is initiated for misreporting/underreporting of income without specifying whether it is for under-reporting

of income OR for misreporting of income and thus proceedings are void ab-initio.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.26,90,509/- u/s 270A of IT Act, 1961 for under-reporting of income.

4. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal.

5. Necessary cost to be awarded to the assessee.

3. The facts on record reveal that penalty u/s 270A of the Act was imposed on the addition of Rs.26,90,509/- made to the income of the assessee on account of allegedundisclosed income by way of rent earned

from letting out of property.

4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before me that the appeal of the assessee in the quantum proceedings against the order passed by the

AO making the aforesaid addition was pending for adjudication.

5. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the quantum appeal of the assessee itself, his adjudication of the penalty order passed by the AO is nothing but pre-mature. When the charge for the levy of penalty i.e. underreporting/misreporting of income has itself not been decided in appeal by the Ld. CIT(A), how could he have adjudicated on the levy of

penalty with regard to the same.

Page | 3 ITA No.1097/JPR/2026 Bajrang Lal Jangir

6. Considering the same, therefore, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the AO is directed to pass order afresh for the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act after considering the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings on the addition made to the income

of the assessee.

7. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is therefore allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14.09.2026

Sd/-

(Annapurna Gupta)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 14.09.2026

Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to:

1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT

4. CIT(Appeals)

5. DR: ITAT

By Order,

Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur