MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

gain to business income. The bench noted that the revenue could not controvert the fact that the assessee submitted that this is only solitary transactions which cannot be termed as business income. Merely the assessee has not challenged the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in quantum in the penalty proceeding the assessee cannot be called upon pay the penalty

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 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(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

271F, 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) may kindly be deleted. 4. The petitioner craves the right to add, alter or in any way amend the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing.” The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal and the same is reproduced as under: “1. That the impugned order dated 22.03.2019 passed

SH. NAND LAL,VILLAGE THADA VIA SEETHAL, TEHSIL TIJARA, ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI, ALWAR

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

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

capital gain. Against the assessment order assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Notices 3 Shri Nand Lal vs. ITO dated 10.01.2021, 03.11.2022 & 04.11.2022 were issued to the assessee but no compliance was made. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by AO. 4. The ld. AO observed that the assessee has not complied the notice issued

KANHAIYA LAL LALWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain arose on the sale of immovable property could have been below taxable limit. It is noteworthy to mention that the provisions of Section 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 categorically mentions that penalty u/s 271F

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

Capital Gain and levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.58,525/- for the year under consideration. 4.2. During the appellate proceedings it proceedings it was noticed that the assessee was being provided with number of opportunities of being heard. The assessee in its submission stated that the notices were being issued on issued on the wrong

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

Capital Gain and levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.58,525/- for the year under consideration. 4.2. During the appellate proceedings it proceedings it was noticed that the assessee was being provided with number of opportunities of being heard. The assessee in its submission stated that the notices were being issued on issued on the wrong

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

Capital Gain and levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.58,525/- for the year under consideration. 4.2. During the appellate proceedings it proceedings it was noticed that the assessee was being provided with number of opportunities of being heard. The assessee in its submission stated that the notices were being issued on issued on the wrong

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271F cannot be applied where the return is required to be furnished u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Income-tax Act. Although there is no minimum time required to be give in the notice to be issued u/s 153A for filing the return and also no separate form has been prescribed, however, assessee was under legal obligation

SAKKU DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section. This being the position, the case gets covered u/s 273B of the Act. Reliance on the Judgment/Order of "Arjun Dada KharateVs DCIT (ITAT Pune)2020" 10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned appellate authority erred in passing the Appellate order dt.31.12.2022 by stating that that penalty proceeding u/s 271F

TEJ SINGH SINSINWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271F for not filing\nof 1 T Return, which was served on the assessee by registered post.\nIt is explicitly stated in the remand report that as per the information available on\nITS received by bank, the assessee had deposited Rs.5,17,980/- on 26.08.2010.\nRelevant para reads as under:\nc.\nd.\nHowever, the finding of the assessing officer noted

SARLA BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is fully allowed in above terms

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalsarla Bhargava, Sb-166, Gandhi Nagar, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur 302 001. Pan No.:Acgpb 5078B ..... Appellant Vs. Ito,Ward-6(4), Jaipur – 302 001. ..... Respondent

271F of the Act. 5. That the appellant reserves the right to add/alter/ modify deleted any or all grounds at any time before the hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee individual was amongst the category of non-filers of return and the Revenue was in possession of information that the assessee invested

PREM CHAND YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271F. 7. The assessee craves leave to add/alter any of the grounds of appeal during the course of hearing. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation and delayed by 1 day. The assessee has filed application requesting condonation of delay. The reasons for delay are mentioned in the application are as under :- “ MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS