RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

u/s 271(1)(c) Assessing Officer alleged that assessee had concealed its income, orders imposing penalty were invalid and liable to be cancelled. [In favor of assessee] 8 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 8 In view of the above facts and judicial decisions, the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly

POOJA UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, it has to be established that prejudice is caused to the concerned person by the procedure followed. The issuance of 5 Pooja Upadhyay vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Jaipur notice is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to levy penalty in order to enable him to explain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

justice. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The bench noted that the date of service of the order is not disputed ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 3 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. and thereby as such there is not delay and thereby we consider this appeal as having been filed in time

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

natural justice.\nThe provisions for the assessment and levy of tax will not apply as such for the\nimposition of penalty, and when there is a specific provision, it is trite that it alone will\ngovern the imposition of penalties. In terms of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, the penal\nprovision is attracted only when the conditions

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

natural justice.\nThe provisions for the assessment and levy of tax will not apply as such for the\nimposition of penalty, and when there is a specific provision, it is trite that it alone will\ngovern the imposition of penalties. In terms of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, the penal\nprovision is attracted only when the conditions

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

natural justice.\nThe provisions for the assessment and levy of tax will not apply as such for the\nimposition of penalty, and when there is a specific provision, it is trite that it alone will\ngovern the imposition of penalties. In terms of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, the penal\nprovision is attracted only when the conditions

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

natural justice.\nThe provisions for the assessment and levy of tax will not apply as such for the\nimposition of penalty, and when there is a specific provision, it is trite that it alone will\ngovern the imposition of penalties. In terms of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, the penal\nprovision is attracted only when the conditions

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

natural justice.\nThe provisions for the assessment and levy of tax will not apply as such for the\nimposition of penalty, and when there is a specific provision, it is trite that it alone will\ngovern the imposition of penalties. In terms of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, the penal\nprovision is attracted only when the conditions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

justice.\n2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The bench noted that the date of service of the order is not disputed\nand thereby as such there is not delay and thereby we consider this appeal as having been filed in time.\n3.1 In ITA No. 267/JPR/2024, the Revenue has raised the following

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

justice.\n2.3\nWe have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on\nrecord. The bench noted that the date of service of the order is not disputed\nand thereby as such there is not delay and thereby we consider this appeal as\nhaving been filed in time.\n3.1 In ITA No. 267/JPR/2024, the Revenue has raised the following

SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

natural justice. Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case of Radhakrishna Vihar in ITTA No.740/2011 while dealing with the penalty u/s 158BFA held that 'we are of the opinion that while the words shall be liable under sub section (1) of section 158BFA of the Act that are entitled to be mandatory, the words may direct in sub section

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

justice deserved to be preferred. Therefore, in exercise of powers under section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay of 153 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits

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.

271(1)(c)—Validity—Absence of specific finding—Addition vis-a-vis cash credit upheld by Tribunal—There was no clear-cut finding in the penalty order or the order of the CIT(A) as to whether there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee—Tribunal too failed to appreciate this legal issue—Penalty

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.

natural justice for submitting the information as called for vide the notices issued However, the assessee failed to comply to the notices. Further, notices were issued to the appellant during the penalty proceedings through the email ID available on the ITBA System and also through speed post. However the appellant did not respond to them. In view of this fact

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.

natural justice for submitting the information as called for vide the notices issued However, the assessee failed to comply to the notices. Further, notices were issued to the appellant during the penalty proceedings through the email ID available on the ITBA System and also through speed post. However the appellant did not respond to them. In view of this fact

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.

natural justice for submitting the information as called for vide the notices issued However, the assessee failed to comply to the notices. Further, notices were issued to the appellant during the penalty proceedings through the email ID available on the ITBA System and also through speed post. However the appellant did not respond to them. In view of this fact

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

natural justice. Hence the same entire penalty may kindly be deleted and the Penalty order may kindly be quashed. KANHIYA LAL SAIN VS JCIT, RANGE-7, JAIPUR 2. Rs.60,000/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the penalty of Rs.60,000/- u/s 271E

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

nature and a decision given in an assessment proceedings cannot possibly bind the authority who tries the assessee for an offence. For this proposition, strength is drawn from the following case laws: 1) Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (P&H); 2) CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Del.); 3)Muniappa Gounder