SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

Section 147/148 of the Act to reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law.". The facts of the present case are exactly similar to above cited four cases and hence it is sincerely requested that the whole proceedings u/s 147 may kindly be declared void ab initio and the order so passed

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 145(3) is illegal and unjustified and deserves to be quashed. Ground No. 1 : That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (A) has erred seriously on facts in sustaining the action of the ld. AO in considering purchases of a sum of Rs. 3,21,93,468 made from 11 parties as bogus

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice issued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 101, 102 and 106 of the Evidence Act, the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the expenses including purchases to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, which was not discharged by the assessee as it failed to produce the parties from whom purchase have been made. The onus lies upon the assessee to prove the genuineness

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 101, 102 and 106 of the\nEvidence Act, the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the expenses including\npurchases to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, which was not discharged by the\nassessee as it failed to produce the parties from whom purchase have been made. The\nonus lies upon the assessee to prove the genuineness

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.

274, read with Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should specify under which limb of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of which no penalty should be levied on the assessee

AJMER INDUSTRIES LLP,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice issued

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice issued

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice issued

SHRI PREM INDUSTRIES,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BHARATPUR

The appeal is disposed of, and the matter is remanded to

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 133(6) of IT Act, none of the two entities-sellers respond thereto. (iii) When the two entities did not respond to the notices, and this fact was brought to the notice of the assessee, it did not take any step to secure presence of officers or concerned officials of the said two entities, before the Assessing Officer with

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the results all the appeals filed by the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 108 of Custom Act Thus, bench noted that revenue has no material to support that the assessee has made any bogus or unverifiable purchases. Further, the assessee filed confirmation letter of M/s Ganpati Exports which was rejected not on the basis of material but on surmises and conjectures. 29. Per contra, the ld. DR representing revenue heavily relied upon

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

Section 108 of Custom Act\n95 to 115\n116 to 125\n126 to 127\n128 to 146\nThus, bench noted that revenue has no material to support that the\nassessee has made any bogus or unverifiable purchases. Further, the\nassessee filed confirmation letter of M/s Ganpati Exports which was\nrejected not on the basis of material but on surmises

K L TAMBI AND CO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

27. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed, and addition of 20% of bogus or purchases from unverifiable persons or entities is upheld as regards AY 2005-06

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal

274 (Gujarat) ii. Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44(Guj.) iii. N. K. Indsutries Ltd. vs. DCIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat) The contention raised by ld. AR for the appellant is that facts of the above said three cases are different from the facts of the present appeal, and as such, ld. CIT(A) has erred

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

Section 108 of Custom Act\n95 to 115\n116 to 125\n126 to 127\n128 to 146\nThus, bench noted that revenue has no material to support that the\nassessee has made any bogus or unverifiable purchases. Further, the\nassessee filed confirmation letter of M/s Ganpati Exports which was\nrejected not on the basis of material but on surmises

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

Section 108 of Custom Act\n95 to 115\n116 to 125\n126 to 127\n128 to 146\nThus, bench noted that revenue has no material to support that the\nassessee has made any bogus or unverifiable purchases. Further, the\nassessee filed confirmation letter of M/s Ganpati Exports which was\nrejected not on the basis of material but on surmises

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , 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. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

bogus. The Assessing Officer accepted the purchases as genuine but added certain amount on the premise that the assessee's profit from such dealings would have been higher than disclosed. The entire issue was at large before the Appellate Commissioner. It is well known that the Commissioner (Appeals) while hearing the 7 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT assessee

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S R.P.WOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., , AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub- section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice issued

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

Section 108 of Custom Act\n95 to 115\n116 to 125\n126 to 127\n128 to 146\nThus, bench noted that revenue has no material to support that the\nassessee has made any bogus or unverifiable purchases. Further, the\nassessee filed confirmation letter of M/s Ganpati Exports which was\nrejected not on the basis of material but on surmises

FINESSE JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalfinesse Jewels Private Limited, A-467 Jaipur, Vidhyut Nagar, Jaipur, Ajmer Road- 302 021. Pan No.: Aabcf 4438R ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jaipur – 302 021. ..... Respondent

sections 68 and 69C of the Income-tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical finding that the amount of Rs. 2, 92, 93,288/- represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers