SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

TDS and self-assessment were Rs.39,94,450/-\nand reflected in Form 26AS. The return of income filed on 14.12.2021 at total\nincome of Rs.97,04,420/- was however, dismissed by the F.A.O., stating that “on\nperusal of departmental databse no trace of return was found on perusal of\ndepartmental database”.\n2. In the re-assessment order

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271B : Failed to get the accounts audited or obtain audit report as required under section 44AB or furnish such report alongwith return under section 139(1) or in response to notice under section 142(1)(i). 271C : Failed to deduct tax at source, wholly or partly, under section 192 to 195 of Chapter XVII-2. 271D : Taken or accepted certain

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

TDS. A final show cause penalty notice dated 19.08.2014 issued u/s 271(1) (c) and 271B of the Act were served upon the daughter in law of the appellant on 20.08.2014 and vide letter dated 22.08.2014, Sh. Vipin Singhal, the earlier AR of the appellant submitted its reply thereof. The AO vide order dated 26.08.2014 imposed a penalty

SHRI KANA RAM KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), 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. 1377/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kana Ram Kumawat, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. “Wisdom”, 23 Purohit Ji Baas, Ward- 2(1), Hawa Sarak, Laxmi Dharm Kanta Jaipur. Gali End, 22 Godam, Jaipur- 302006. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahcpk 0149 H Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Anil Kaushik (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 11/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed U/S 148/144 By Ld. Ao Is Illegal & Bad In Law & Is Invalid Abinitio. 2. The Assessee Has Filed His Income Tax Return On Time, Obtained The Tax Audit Report On Time & The Return So Filed Was Processed & Refund Was Granted By The Department Which Is Duly Posted In 26As By The Department, Despite That Reassessment Proceedings Were Initiated For The Reason That The Assessee Did Not File His Itr, Thus The Very Basis Of Selection Of The Case For Reassessment U/S 147/148 Of The Act Is Ill Founded, Grossly Incorrect & False & In Contradiction With The Facts Available With The Department, Hence, The Reassessment Proceedings

section 44AB of the IT Act, 1961 within prescribed time limit. ii. Filed his ITR 5 ITA 1377/JP/2019 _ Kana Ram Kumawat Vs ITO iii. ITR was processed and refund was granted as reflected in 26AS. iv. The Id. CIT(A) accepts in his order that the Assessee filed his ITR that is confirmed from form 26AS showing processing

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. INDU RATHORE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

271B and 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Initiation of penalty proceedings is only consequential in nature. Since, full relief is given on quantum addition, no cause of action arises for deciding these grounds. Hence, these grounds are treated as dismissed.’’ 2.3 During the courseof hearing, the ld. DR supported the order of the AO and submitted that