BHIM SINGH,KOTA RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, C-2, KOTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 91/JPR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to record specific satisfaction regarding the furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Furthermore, the additions were made on estimation, which does not attract penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, which was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the total income, leading to penalty proceedings. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, and the assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when additions are made on estimation and without proper satisfaction recorded by the revenue authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Maheshwari, (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@
For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Hearing: 25/04/2023Pronounced: 10/05/2023

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →