All.) II. Jyoti Laxman Konkar vs CIT 292 ITR 163 (Bom.), III. Deepak Construction Company v. CIT (298 ITR 109)

SHRI SHWETAL J. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 493/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…held by Allahabad High Court in the case of Mohammad Ibrahim Azimulla 131 ITR 680 (AIL). Concealment means an attempt to hide an item of income or a portion thereof from the knowledge of the income tax authorities, held in case of CIT Vs. Mahabit Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109(Jhar). The A.O. has initiated penalty perfectly as per provisions of the IT. Act, 1961 and has only imposed penalty of 100% of amount payable on concealed income for which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. It is not the case where appellant made certain claims in the return of income which were found to be not allowable subsequently dur…

MAHESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…surrendered after search operations and initiation of reassessment proceedings — Presumption of concealment of income not rebutted —Levy of penalty valid — Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c). 271(1)(c) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. MAHABIR PRASAD BAJAJ, [2008]298 ITR 109 (JHARKHAND) Penalty—Concealment of Income—Incriminating documents found during search—Contention by assessee that —Revised return accepted —Revised return filed not voluntarily but owing to search and seizure— Levy of penalty proper Income tax Act, 1961, .271(1)(c). 271(1)(c) CIT V. HANDLOOM EMPORIUM [2006]282 ITR 431 (ALL.) Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c…

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 352/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

…fide, which is supported by the fact that the income was not offered by the appellant firm in the returns u/s. 139 filed prior to the date of search. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of CIT Vs Mahabir Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109 and Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Ajit B. Zota Vs ACIT 40 SOT 543. Further, the information about the undisclosed hand loans found during the course of search was unexplained and the said information was not reflected in the books of accounts or the appellant even could not explain ITA Nos.352 - 357/Bang/2021 Page 17 of 30 the source for…

SHRI HASMUKHBHAI BACHUBHAI RADADIA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2742/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2742/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Hashmukhbhai Bachubhai Vs. Dcit, Radadia, Circle – 3(3), 492, Avadh, Opp. Amul Ice- Ahmedabad. Cream Parlour, Lad Society Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad. (Pan No. Aaqpr 7176 N) , , अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri U. S. Bhati & Abhimanyu Bhati, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A)” In Short] Dated 22.09.2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.0 The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty Order. 2.0 The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Concluding That Mistake Committed By The Appellant Was Intentional. He Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Explanation Of The Appellant Duly Supported By The Affidavits To The Effect That The Advocate

For Appellant: Shri U. S. Bhati & AbhimanyuFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…held by Allahabad High Court in the case of Mohammad Ibrahim Azimulla 131 ITR 680 (AIL). Concealment means an attempt to hide an item of income or a portion thereof from the knowledge of the income /ax authorities, held in case of CIT Vs. Mahabit Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109 (Jhar) The A.O. has initiated penalty perfectly as per provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961 and has only imposed penalty of 100% of amount payable on concealed income for which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. It is not the case where appellant made certain claims in the return of income which were found to be not allowable subsequently d…