PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal

393 ITR 1High Court2017#627 most cited

What is PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal authority for?

If an assessment under Section 148/147 is accepted without modification or addition, or if an amount is surrendered in a return filed under Section 153A, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be imposed.

157

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal · 393 ITR 1 · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · Section 153A assessment · surrender of income · Section 148 reassessment · assessment accepted without modification

Also reported as

79 Taxmann.com 96

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 147Section 132Section 274
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 90(3)section 65(b)section 276section 80hhc(3)section 65b(4)section 163section 153b(1)section 42azadi bachao andolanhouse property incomesection 115japenalty under section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal

Mukesh Ramchandra Patel, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1971/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2010-11 Mukesh Ramchandra Patel, Deputy Commissioner Of 1397, Patel-Vas, Mithakhali Gam, Vs Income-Tax, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380015 Circle 1(2), Pan : Aggpp 5391 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S N Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2020

For Appellant: Shri S N Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…trued that some assets were found during the course of search representing that income which has been declared by the appellants. Somewhat similar and identical issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal, 393 ITR 1.” 8. In the light of above, let us examine the facts of the present case. In the present case, assessee admitted that, along with his co-owners, a land was sold. The evidence exhibiting the sale of land was found. The evidence exhibiting receipt of cash over and above the sale consideration stated in the sale deed was found. When these materials w…

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 45/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…her than the income in the original return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act, then such disclosure of additional income will not automatically lead to penalty. In this regard ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Neeraj Jindal, (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del). Accordingly, ld. AR submitted that the penalty imposed in both the appeals deserves to be deleted. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of both the authorities below and submitted that in the returns filed in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee has claimed that additional income has been received by him, whic…

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 44/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…her than the income in the original return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act, then such disclosure of additional income will not automatically lead to penalty. In this regard ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Neeraj Jindal, (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del). Accordingly, ld. AR submitted that the penalty imposed in both the appeals deserves to be deleted. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of both the authorities below and submitted that in the returns filed in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee has claimed that additional income has been received by him, whic…

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 43/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…her than the income in the original return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act, then such disclosure of additional income will not automatically lead to penalty. In this regard ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Neeraj Jindal, (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del). Accordingly, ld. AR submitted that the penalty imposed in both the appeals deserves to be deleted. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of both the authorities below and submitted that in the returns filed in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee has claimed that additional income has been received by him, whic…

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 42/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…her than the income in the original return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act, then such disclosure of additional income will not automatically lead to penalty. In this regard ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Neeraj Jindal, (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del). Accordingly, ld. AR submitted that the penalty imposed in both the appeals deserves to be deleted. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of both the authorities below and submitted that in the returns filed in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee has claimed that additional income has been received by him, whic…

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 41/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…her than the income in the original return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act, then such disclosure of additional income will not automatically lead to penalty. In this regard ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Neeraj Jindal, (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del). Accordingly, ld. AR submitted that the penalty imposed in both the appeals deserves to be deleted. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of both the authorities below and submitted that in the returns filed in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee has claimed that additional income has been received by him, whic…

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 40/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…her than the income in the original return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act, then such disclosure of additional income will not automatically lead to penalty. In this regard ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Neeraj Jindal, (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del). Accordingly, ld. AR submitted that the penalty imposed in both the appeals deserves to be deleted. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of both the authorities below and submitted that in the returns filed in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee has claimed that additional income has been received by him, whic…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ultimate Flexipack Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA No 4883/Del 2011 and CO No

ITA 472/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri M. P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

…impugned order, Revenue preferred this appeal. Assessee also prefer across objections, however, with a delay stating that they realised the legal right at a belated stage after the jurisdictional High Court rendered the judgement in the case of Neeraj Jindal 393 ITR 1. ITA Nos.4883 & 4884/Del/2011 & 472/Del/2013 CO Nos.03 & 04/Del/2019 & 120/Del/2019 M/s. Ultimate Flixipack Ltd. Asst.Years–2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 9 13. It is the argument of the Ld. DR in justification of the assessment order, that making a claim which is non-sustainable in law itself amounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ultimate Flexipack Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA No 4883/Del 2011 and CO No

ITA 4884/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri M. P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

…impugned order, Revenue preferred this appeal. Assessee also prefer across objections, however, with a delay stating that they realised the legal right at a belated stage after the jurisdictional High Court rendered the judgement in the case of Neeraj Jindal 393 ITR 1. ITA Nos.4883 & 4884/Del/2011 & 472/Del/2013 CO Nos.03 & 04/Del/2019 & 120/Del/2019 M/s. Ultimate Flixipack Ltd. Asst.Years–2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 9 13. It is the argument of the Ld. DR in justification of the assessment order, that making a claim which is non-sustainable in law itself amounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ultimate Flexipack Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA No 4883/Del 2011 and CO No

ITA 4883/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri M. P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

…impugned order, Revenue preferred this appeal. Assessee also prefer across objections, however, with a delay stating that they realised the legal right at a belated stage after the jurisdictional High Court rendered the judgement in the case of Neeraj Jindal 393 ITR 1. ITA Nos.4883 & 4884/Del/2011 & 472/Del/2013 CO Nos.03 & 04/Del/2019 & 120/Del/2019 M/s. Ultimate Flixipack Ltd. Asst.Years–2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 9 13. It is the argument of the Ld. DR in justification of the assessment order, that making a claim which is non-sustainable in law itself amounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income…

Shri Vitthalbhai Gordhanbhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

ITA 528/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Sureshbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0781K Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajivbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0713R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…eals are covered by the order of ITAT, in their own case vide ITA No.4.5.6/Ahd/2018 pronounced on 19/07/2019 by ITAT SMC Bench. The facts are same. 2. Kirit Dahyabhai Patel (2017) 80 Taxman.com.162(Gujarat) 3. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 79 Taxmann. Com. 96 (Delhi), 393 ITR 1(Delhi) :- The Hon'ble High Court refered to decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel (Para.20) In this case, the decision of Prem Arora V/s. Dy.CIT 149 TTJ (Delhi) 590 has also been mentioned at para-5. This case was relied upon by the assesses before lower authorities. 4. ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench-C ITA No.2662/A/2017,2669,…

Ravjibhai Gordhanbhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

ITA 527/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Sureshbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0781K Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajivbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0713R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…eals are covered by the order of ITAT, in their own case vide ITA No.4.5.6/Ahd/2018 pronounced on 19/07/2019 by ITAT SMC Bench. The facts are same. 2. Kirit Dahyabhai Patel (2017) 80 Taxman.com.162(Gujarat) 3. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 79 Taxmann. Com. 96 (Delhi), 393 ITR 1(Delhi) :- The Hon'ble High Court refered to decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel (Para.20) In this case, the decision of Prem Arora V/s. Dy.CIT 149 TTJ (Delhi) 590 has also been mentioned at para-5. This case was relied upon by the assesses before lower authorities. 4. ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench-C ITA No.2662/A/2017,2669,…

Shri Sureshbhai Gordhanbhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

ITA 526/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Sureshbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0781K Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajivbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0713R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…eals are covered by the order of ITAT, in their own case vide ITA No.4.5.6/Ahd/2018 pronounced on 19/07/2019 by ITAT SMC Bench. The facts are same. 2. Kirit Dahyabhai Patel (2017) 80 Taxman.com.162(Gujarat) 3. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 79 Taxmann. Com. 96 (Delhi), 393 ITR 1(Delhi) :- The Hon'ble High Court refered to decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel (Para.20) In this case, the decision of Prem Arora V/s. Dy.CIT 149 TTJ (Delhi) 590 has also been mentioned at para-5. This case was relied upon by the assesses before lower authorities. 4. ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench-C ITA No.2662/A/2017,2669,…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Shri Kamal Sethia, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1498/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Anil Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ’B’ JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1498/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Income Sh. Kamal Sethia Vs. tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur 801, Western Height, S-21, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFEPS7265Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1499/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-1…

Shri Karamashibhai G. Aghara, Morbi vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the assessee in the case of Shri Bharatbhai T

ITA 159/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Respondent: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271A

…ated. The Ld. A.R thereafter adverted to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Marble Associates (2018) 92 taxmann.com 109 (Vishakhapatnam) and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Niraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Delhi) to support its case for deletion of penalty. 10. The Ld. D.R, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and submitted in furtherance mat where the assessee himself has admitted certain income in the course of search and included the same as part of return, the consequences of penalty under section 271AAB cannot be escaped 11.…

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad vs. Yamunaji Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3308/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3307/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(2) Vs. Mann Corporation Ahmedabad. Mala Hills, Aarya Manan Shop B/H. Anand Party Plot Road Gst Crossing, Ranip, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabfa 6682 K

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AR with Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘B’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.3307/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Cent.Cir.2(2) Vs. Mann Corporation Ahmedabad. Mala Hills, Aarya Manan Shop B/h. Anand Party Plot Road GST Crossing, Ranip, Ahmedabad. PAN : AABFA 6682 K आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.3308/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Cent.Cir.2(2) Vs. Yamunaji Corporation Ahmedabad. Survey No.131, Nr.Yogeshwar Kutir Bungalow New Ranip, Ahmedabad. PAN : A…

The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad vs. Mann Corporation, Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3307/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3307/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(2) Vs. Mann Corporation Ahmedabad. Mala Hills, Aarya Manan Shop B/H. Anand Party Plot Road Gst Crossing, Ranip, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabfa 6682 K

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AR with Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘B’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.3307/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Cent.Cir.2(2) Vs. Mann Corporation Ahmedabad. Mala Hills, Aarya Manan Shop B/h. Anand Party Plot Road GST Crossing, Ranip, Ahmedabad. PAN : AABFA 6682 K आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.3308/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Cent.Cir.2(2) Vs. Yamunaji Corporation Ahmedabad. Survey No.131, Nr.Yogeshwar Kutir Bungalow New Ranip, Ahmedabad. PAN : A…

Shri Saurabh Sharma, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1302/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: The Itat.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ble article or thing found in search, the same cannot be subject matter of penalty under Explanation 5A(ii) of section 271(1)(c). Reliance in this connection is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del)(HC). I also observe that it was a bonafaide mistake of the assessee not to disclose the interest income in so far as it was credited in the passbook but was not known to the assessee. When this mistake was came to his notice, 4 ITA 1301 & 1302/JP/2018 Saurabh Sharma Vs DCIT bank interest income was duly incorporated in the return so filed. A…

Shri Saurabh Sharma, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1301/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ble article or thing found in search, the same cannot be subject matter of penalty under Explanation 5A(ii) of section 271(1)(c). Reliance in this connection is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del)(HC). I also observe that it was a bonafaide mistake of the assessee not to disclose the interest income in so far as it was credited in the passbook but was not known to the assessee. When this mistake was came to his notice, 4 ITA 1301 & 1302/JP/2018 Saurabh Sharma Vs DCIT bank interest income was duly incorporated in the return so filed. A…

Shri Tejas Vinubhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Cir-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 2671/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2662 /Ahd/2017 Asstt.Year : 2009-10 Late Pragnesh Navinbhai Patel Through Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) Legal Heir Smt.Shraddha Pragnesh Patel Vs Ahmedabad. 39, Kamalnayan Bungalows Aarohi Club Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Abbpp 5517 H आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2669, 2670 & 2671/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Shri Tejas Vinubhai Shah Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) 48, Alok Bungalow Vs Ahmedabad. Sun-N-Step Club Road Pan : Ahbps 5069 H आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2663 To 2668/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 To 2012-13 Shri Pravinbhai Gordhanbhai Patel Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) 8, Sardar Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Ambica Nagar Highway Road Kalol (N.G.) Pan : Afupp 7843 M

For Appellant: Shri A.L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Pathak,Sr.DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…trued that some assets were found during the course of search representing that income which has been declared by the appellants. Somewhat similar and identical issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal, 393 ITR 1. The following finding of Hon’ble Delhi High Court is worth to note. It reads as under: “26. Now for the Revenue to invoke Explanation 5, it would have to prove that its requirements are clearly fulfilled in the present case. In order for Explanation 5 to apply, it is necessary that there must be certain assets (such as money, bullion etc.) found i…