RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly considered by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal No. 474/2015-16. Vide that order Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs.6,01,459/- to Rs.2,67,647/- by applying G.P. Rate @ 12%. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,67,647/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 01-05-2020 wherein the AO imposed the penalty on the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,03,150/- u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:-

bogus purchases. SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR The ld. CIT(A) has estimated 15% of the profit on such purchases, accordingly given partial relief. In quantum appeal, the Tribunal have confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the addition @ 15%. The A.O. has also imposed penalty U/s 271

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.

purchases thus it is a fit case for initiating the 9 ITA 1266/JP/2019_ M/s Vijay Kedia Vs ACIT penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Later on a pre-printed/cyclostyle performa by way notice U/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act without striking off the unnecessary portions of the notice was served upon the assessee

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act are vitiated since it did not specifically state the grounds mentioned in Sec 271(1)( c) of the Act. Smt. Raj Kumari Maheshwari 13. We are relying on the principle laid down by this bench in the case of M/s Vijay Kedia Vs ACIT in ITA No. 1266/JP/2019 order dated 30/07/2021, wherein identical

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

bogus purchases @ 25% on total purchase of Rs. 44,50,581/- and addition of Rs. 32,38,590/- u/s 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability of trade creditors. Thereafter, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings U/s 271

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)

bogus purchases of Rs.17,57,750/- and also made addition on account of commission of Rs.3,516/-. It is also noteworthy to mention that on appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the additions made by the AO. Subsequently, the AO passed penalty order u/s 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI AJAY AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of the ground that the additional income surrendered by the assessee was 4 DCIT Vs Ajay Agarwal treated as concealed income only on the basis of statements recorded during the search dehors the seized material, finding in the assessment, therefore, the statement of the assessee is not sufficient to establish that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of the ground that the additional income surrendered by the assessee was treated as concealed income only on the basis of statements recorded 4 DCIT Vs Shri Vasudev Agarwal during the search dehors the seized material, finding in the assessment, therefore, the statement of the assessee is not sufficient to establish

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. MALTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of the ground that the additional income surrendered by the assessee was treated as concealed income only on the basis of statements recorded 4 DCIT Vs Malti Agarwal during the search dehors the seized material, finding in the assessment, therefore, the statement of the assessee is not sufficient to establish that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of the ground that the additional income surrendered by the assessee was treated as concealed income only on the basis of statements recorded 4 DCIT Vs Jyoti Agarwal during the search dehors the seized material, finding in the assessment, therefore, the statement of the assessee is not sufficient to establish that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of the ground that the additional income surrendered by the assessee was treated as concealed income only on the basis of statements recorded 4 DCIT Vs Indira Agarwal during the search dehors the seized material, finding in the assessment, therefore, the statement of the assessee is not sufficient to establish that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA vs. SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of the ground that the additional income surrendered by the assessee was treated as concealed income only on the basis of statements recorded during the search dehors the seized material, finding in the assessment, therefore, the statement of the assessee is not sufficient to establish that 4 DCIT Vs Rajendra Agarwal

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)

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 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

SHRI VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

u/s 40(a)(ia). ITAT 's order cancelling the penalty was sustained by the High Court. 2. CIT v HP State Forest Corporation Ltd. 120121 340 ITR 204(H.P.) In this case the Hon 'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has taken the view that where assessee discloses the basic facts and does not conceal any material fact, no penalty could

SHRI ALOK HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases. The ld. CIT(A) has estimated 15% of the profit on such purchases, accordingly given partial relief. In quantum appeal, the Tribunal have confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the addition @ 15%. The A.O. has also imposed penalty U/s 271

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

bogus purchases, has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A)(C) , herself. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A)(C), Jaipur is justified holding that penalty U/s 271

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

purchase of shares were admitted by assessee and it had not brought on record anything to suggest that reassessment proceedings were being undertaken in arbitrary manner, impugned reopening notice was justified [2023] 152 taxmann.com 573 (SC)/[2023] 454 ITR 794 (SC) [04-0... INCOME TAX: Notice issued in SLP filed against impugned High Court order that where Assessing Officer made

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

bogus but the entry in the seized material is only the computation of long term capital gain on sale of shares. Therefore, the documents which were found and seized during the course of search and seizure action contains the details of LTCG would not be regarded as incriminating material disclosing any income not recorded in the books of account. Hence

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

bogus but the entry in the seized material is only the computation of long term capital gain on sale of shares. Therefore, the documents which were found and seized during the course of search and seizure action contains the details of LTCG would not be regarded as incriminating material disclosing any income not recorded in the books of account. Hence