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

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

14,976/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied for concealing the\nincome of Rs.3,94,67,426/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s\n133A of the I.T. Act?\"\n3.2 In ITA No. 196/JPR/2024, the Revenue has raised the following\ngrounds of appeal:-\n\"1. Whether

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

14-15) Where penalty notice issued against assessee was not adverted to any specific limb of section 271(1)(c), thus, Assessing Officer was not clear whether he intended to levy a penalty on assessee for concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, Tribunal was justified in quashing penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated against assessee

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

14-15)\nWhere penalty notice issued against assessee was not adverted to any specific limb of\nsection 271(1)(c), thus, Assessing Officer was not clear whether he intended to levy a\npenalty on assessee for concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars, Tribunal was justified in quashing penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated\nagainst assessee

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c)\nwere satisfied or fulfilled so as to justify imposition of penalty-\nTribunal merely followed dictum of Supreme Court in several\ndecisions and thus penalty was rightly deleted by Tribunal—Penalty\nhas therefore been rightly deleted-Such a finding essentially based on\nfacts and circumstances peculiar to assessee, does not raise any\nsubstantial question of law-Court directed

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)

10 /20 / 30% since the assessee falls in Clauses (a) / (b) / (c) of section 271AAB of the Act. He should have further mentioned that as the assessees case falls under clause-c of section 271AAB of the Act, why she should not be visited by penalty @ 30% of the undisclosed income. Against this charge the assessee should have been given

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,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)

10 /20 / 30% since the assessee falls in Clauses (a) / (b) / (c) of section 271AAB of the Act. He should have further mentioned that as the assessees case falls under clause-c of section 271AAB of the Act, why she should not be visited by penalty @ 30% of the undisclosed income. Against this charge the assessee should have been given

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

10. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings. Merely because an addition has been made or confirmed in the assessment, does not, per se, lead to imposition of penalty u/s. 271(l)(c). Penalty proceedings are separately initiated on conclusion of the assessment, in which the assessee is given

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

10. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings. Merely because an addition has been made or confirmed in the assessment, does not, per se, lead to imposition of penalty u/s. 271(l)(c). Penalty proceedings are separately initiated on conclusion of the assessment, in which the assessee is given

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

10-06-2007 but the tax payer has not filed the return for that previous year, although due date of filing has expired for the purpose of imposition of a penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, the tax payer be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income

SHRI RAM DAS MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

14,97,82,023/-. Even while passing the penalty order the Learned Assessing Officer has not specified the default of the assessee with ITA 421/JP/2018_ 6 Shri Ram Das Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT respect of clause (a), (b) or (c) of section 271AAB(1). The penalty order has been passed u/s 271AAB. It is this penalty order which has been subjected

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

14,97,82,023/-. Even while passing the penalty order the Ld. Assessing Officer has not specified the default of the assessee with respect of ITA 419/JP/2018_ 6 Shri Ashok Kr. Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT clause (a), (b) or (c) of section 271AAB(1). The penalty order has been passed u/s 271AAB. It is this penalty order which has been subjected

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

14 Narayana Heights & Tower. “As the assessee has concealed/furnished the inaccurate particulars of income therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(C) is also initiated.” 3.3. As per section 271 (1)(c), the assessing officer is empowered to impose penalty if in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income

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.

14,75,790/- For that reason, I am satisfied that the assessee has committed default u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.’’[Para 5 Page no-3 of the Penalty order of the AO] In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

14. It was finally submitted that it is trite law that penalties should not be imposed unless the case falls under the four corners of law mandating the penalty. Thus such laws are to be strictly implemented. Thus, the clause of section 271AAB(1) has not been specified in the initiation of penalty in Assessment order as well

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

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

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

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI MOHAMED MOHTRAM FAROOQUI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

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

u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable. 8. The AO however, imposed penalty @ 120% on the tax on alleged concealed income of Rs.5,92,340/- by holding that as per sub-section (3) of section 132A, provisions of sub-section (4A) to (14) of section 132(1) shall apply and therefore in Explanation 5, once reference is made to section