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)

search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members of Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group on 28.07.2016 to which the assessee is one of the members. Because of that action notices were issued to the above named assessee u/s 153A

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

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

search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members of Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group on 28.07.2016 to which the assessee is one of the members. Because of that action notices were issued to the above named assessee u/s 153A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

seizure operations were carried out by the I.T. Department on 19-01-2021 on Gokul Kripa Group and the assessee was also covered in search. In consequent to search action, the assessment of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 to A.Y. 2020-21 was made u/s 153A of the Act and the assessment for A.Y. 2021-22 was made u/s

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

seizure operations were carried out by the I.T. Department on 19-01-2021 on Gokul Kripa Group and the assessee was also covered in search. In consequent to search action, the assessment of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 to A.Y. 2020-21 was made u/s 153A of the Act and the assessment for A.Y. 2021-22 was made u/s

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c), the\ncontentions of voluntary surrender to buy peace and avoid litigation\netc. are liable to be rejected and in the context of section 271AAB\neven the question of considering such contentions does not arise.\nFrom the perusal of the statement of the assessee recorded in the\ncourse of search and seizure action it is seen that

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

penalty of Rs. 1,91,375/-/- imposed by the learned AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 after rejecting submission of the appellant that provisions of explanation 5A to Sec. 271(1)(c) are not applicable to additional income offered to tax on suo moto basis in return filed u/s 153A

AMAR BHARTI,JAIPUR vs. ASSTT.. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings the A.Q. has service notice u/s.142(1) of the LT. Act. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) on various dated as per para 4 of this order, were served upon the assesse through Speed Post as well as through Notice Server. The appellant remains silent

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

seizure proceedings and, therefore, clarified that the confession during the course of search and survey operation do not serve any useful purpose. There should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income Tax Department. The Board has again

SHRI OM PRAKASH MODI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 196/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Om Prakash Modi, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. B-49, Keshav Path, Suraj Nagar Central Circle-2, (West), Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acfpm 8683 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 01/01/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271Aab Imposed At Rs. 3,75,00,000/-, Arbitrarily, Thus The Order So Passed Deserves To Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Fact That The Appellant Has Duly Disclosed In The Statements U/S 132(4) & The Mode & Manner Was Also Explained, Further Due Tax Was Also Paid, Therefore, The Penalty Of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- So Levied Deserves To Be Deleted. 2.1 That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty Imposed On Additional Income Of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- Duly Offered

seizure conducted on or after 01/07/2012 to strengthen the penal provisions. It was proposed to provide that the provisions of Section 271AAA will not be applicable for searched conducted on or after 1st July, 2012. It was also proposed to insert a new provision in the Act (Section 271AAB) for levy of penalty in a case where search has been

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and/or survey action u/s 133A\nof the Act was carried out on 19-01-2021 by the Income Tax Department\non M/s Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred\nas GKCDPL or assessee), one of the members of the Gokul Kripa Group.\nWhile in search proceeding various incriminating documents were\nfound/seized including

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and/or survey action u/s 133A\nof the Act was carried out on 19-01-2021 by the Income Tax Department\non M/s Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred\nas GKCDPL or assessee), one of the members of the Gokul Kripa Group.\nWhile in search proceeding various incriminating documents were\nfound/seized including

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

u/s 271AAB.\nHowever this contention of the appellant is misfounded as is not such condition\nfor the levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act.\nThe acceptance during the course of search and seizure action and the offering of\nthe income in the return of income on these accounts is guided by the principle of\nsection

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)

seizure action u/s 132 of 1.T. Act, 1961, was carried out on 12.09.2018 at the residential and business premises of R.P. Group of Ajmer. Various assets had been found at the time of search and some of them were also seized at various places of the group at the time of action u/s 132 of I.T. Act. Certain incriminating

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and/or survey action u/s 133A\nof the Act was carried out on 19-01-2021 by the Income Tax Department\non M/s Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred\nas GKCDPL or assessee), one of the members of the Gokul Kripa Group.\nWhile in search proceeding various incriminating documents were\nfound/seized including

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and/or survey action u/s 133A\nof the Act was carried out on 19-01-2021 by the Income Tax Department\non M/s Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred\nas GKCDPL or assessee), one of the members of the Gokul Kripa Group.\nWhile in search proceeding various incriminating documents were\nfound/seized including

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and/or survey action u/s 133A\nof the Act was carried out on 19-01-2021 by the Income Tax Department\non M/s Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred\nas GKCDPL or assessee), one of the members of the Gokul Kripa Group.\nWhile in search proceeding various incriminating documents were\nfound/seized including

GHANSHYAM TAK,NAYA GHAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271 read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act which does not mention the specific default committed by the appellant rendering the appellant liable to penalty under Income Tax Act. 4.2 Ld CIT(A) also erred in law in not quashing the patently illegal penalty order when the final show cause notice issued

HARI NARAIN PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

271 AAB of the I T Act, 1961. The Hon’ble court in the said judgement held that “ from the question and reply of the assessee has explained the source of Rs.4,00,000/- given to his son as his personal savings. Therefore, even if the assessee has offered the said amount to tax, the same does not fall