Shiv Lal Tak v. CIT

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…AO. The basis for levying penalty in present case is only estimation, which is purely question of fact and there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by first appellate authority as well as the appellate Tribunal both….” 1.16.ii Shiv Lal Tak vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj.) [Compilation Page 35 to 40] 1.17. Based on the above Jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur bench in the undernoted cases has held that no penalty can be imposed where additional are on estimate basis. 1.17.i Vikram Singh vs. DCIT, ITA No. 143/JP/2016 [Compilation Page 41 to 60] 1.17.ii Deepak Dalela vs. ITO, ITA No.…

RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

…t it did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income therefore, deleted the penalty and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi confirmed the order of ITAT. Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT 251 ITR 373 also upheld the said proposition. Further glaring facts have also been placed on record before us wherein we noticed that the ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for the previous year i.e. A.Y. 2007-08 had deleted the penalty levied by the A.O. on identical facts and circumstances, therefore, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circ…

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

…that it did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income therefore, deleted the penalty and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi confirmed the order of ITAT. The judgement of Rajasthan High Court in case of Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT 251 ITR 373 also supports the above contention. The judgement of Rajasthan High Court in case of Shiv Lal Takis fully applicable as even after amendment in clause B of expl — 1 to 271 (1) (c) by redrafting the same it remained similarly worded. The judgement of Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs. Giriraj Agarwal Giri (2012) 346 ITR 152 (Raj.) also clearl…

M/S. JADAUJEWELLERS & MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ‘B’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 111/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11 cuke M/s Jadau Jewellers & DCIT, Vs. Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., B-1, Central Circle-02, Trimurti Circle, Govind Marg, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ6114C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Rev…

NAVEEN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KISHANGARH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

…s imposed for ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’, the penalty order cannot legally stand. 16. With regard to the merit of the penalty, the ld AR has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shiv Lal Tak Vs CIT 251 ITR 373 (Raj) and CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580 (Raj) wherein it was held that no penalty is imposable where addition is made on estimated basis. 17. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that there was concealment of income therefore, the penalty so levied for the a…

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

…is an opinion which is taken subjectively, when this difference of opinions leads to any addition, it cannot terminate into a penalty under s. 271(l)(c) of the Act. The decision of Shiv LalTak v. CIT ITA 63 to 68/JP/2019 15 M/s N N Jewellers Vs ITO [2001] 251 ITR 373/[2002] 121 Taxman 99 (Raj.) of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court is also relevant. 5. Thus, it is manifestly clear that the sustained additions are a result of estimated disallowances of expenses and estimated trading addition. Accordingly, by respectfully following the above judgments/orders and by applying their ratio decidendi to the facts of this…

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

…is an opinion which is taken subjectively, when this difference of opinions leads to any addition, it cannot terminate into a penalty under s. 271(l)(c) of the Act. The decision of Shiv LalTak v. CIT ITA 63 to 68/JP/2019 15 M/s N N Jewellers Vs ITO [2001] 251 ITR 373/[2002] 121 Taxman 99 (Raj.) of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court is also relevant. 5. Thus, it is manifestly clear that the sustained additions are a result of estimated disallowances of expenses and estimated trading addition. Accordingly, by respectfully following the above judgments/orders and by applying their ratio decidendi to the facts of this…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI vs. SHRI PRATAP SINGH TANWAR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

…ITO, Bhiwadi Vs. Sh. Pratap Singh Tanwar, Alwar trading addition made is only on estimate. On such estimated trading addition, penalty is not leviable as held in the following cases:- • CIT Vs. Mahendra Singh Khedla 71 DTR 189 (Raj.) • Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT 251 ITR 373 (Raj.) • Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H) • CIT Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain 38 DTR 345 (Chattisgarh) • CIT Vs. Suresh Kumar Bansal 254 ITR 130 (P&H) (ii) Unexplained cash credit of Rs.85,39,700/-:- (a) At the outset, it is to submit that after the order of Tribunal, the addition on account on unexplained cash credit has been reduced to Rs.6…

VIKRAM SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee contended that no penalty can be imposed where the trading additions are purely based on an estimation and reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Shiv Lal Tak (251 ITR 373) & Mahendra Singh Khedla (252 CTR 453), besides other decisions. The ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the contention of the assessee and stated that since specific defects have been established in the books of account, therefore, estimation is not just plain estimation but is supported by positive evidence and accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) w…