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)

10. To bolster this submission, the learned counsel for the assessee took refuge of Explanation 5 and Explanation 5A of Section 271 of the Act and submitted that these Explanations provide that in cases of search by way of deeming fiction, the liability towards penalty has been prescribed even in cases where the return of income for such year

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)

27:1(1)(c) of the Act, being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.’’ During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the 3.4 following detailed written submission with the prayer that the penalty confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) needs to be deleted. Submission:- 1. At the outset it is submitted that

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

27:1(1)(c) of the Act, being 100% of the\ntax sought to be evaded.\"\n\n3.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the\nfollowing detailed written submission with the prayer that the penalty confirmed\nby the ld. CIT(A) needs to be deleted.\n\nSubmission:-\n\n1. At the outset

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

10-11. In\nview of this, the claim of the assessee of deduction u/s 35 AD for\n Assessment Year 2015-16 became redundant. Accordingly, during the\ncourse of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted letter dated\n09/12/2016, the claim of deduction was withdrawn. In these\ncircumstances and facts of the case, the action of the assessee in\nclaiming deduction u/s

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)

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[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

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)

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[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

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) 52[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

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

27. In support, reliance was placed on the following judicial precedents which have upheld that when conditions to Explanation 7 of section 271(1)(c) are not fulfilled and when the appellant has determined the ALP in good faith and with due diligence, penalty cannot be levied: " DCIT v. Mastek Ltd. (ITA No. 2785 & 2786/Ahd/2013) " Mastek Ltd v. DCIT

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

27. In support, reliance was placed on the following judicial precedents which have upheld that when conditions to Explanation 7 of section 271(1)(c) are not fulfilled and when the appellant has determined the ALP in good faith and with due diligence, penalty cannot be levied: " DCIT v. Mastek Ltd. (ITA No. 2785 & 2786/Ahd/2013) " Mastek Ltd v. DCIT

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

10) in return filed under section 153A cannot be denied on ground that claim was not made earlier in return filed under section 139(1)- Where assessee filed return of income in response to notice issued under section 153A, interest under section 234A was liable to be charged from date of expiry of notice period given in notice under section

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

10). The ld AO initiated penalty by mentioning that:- “As the assessee has concealed/furnished the inaccurate particulars of income therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated”. Notice u/s 274 3 Narayana Heights & Tower. Further in the penalty notice u/s 274 read with section 271 of I.Tax Act dated 25.03.2015 (copy at PB pg 16), AO mentioned that:- 271

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

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

10%, 20% or 30% depending on the fulfillment of certain conditions therein. It was submitted that all the conditions specified in Section 271AAB have been fulfilled in the instant case, therefore, the penalty U/s 271AAB being in the nature of mandatory penalty and there being no discretion with the Income tax authorities, the penalty so imposed

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.

27^ dagger (1)(c) got attracted for imposition of penalty and therefore the impugned penalty needs to be deleted There is a failure on the part of the AO to put to the assessee a specific charge which is fatal to the penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings entail civil consequences for the assessee The AO is required to apply his mind

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

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

10. It was further held by the ld. CIT(A) that as per clause (b) of explanation 5A, the term used is “due date” and not “due date as specified u/s 139(1)” and therefore, even if assessee files return of income after date of search but within extended due date u/s 139(4) by including the unaccounted income admitted

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)

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

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

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

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

27,200/- which includes the income of Rs. 10,87,91,302/- admitted during search (including income of Rs. 10,69,91,302/- already declared in the return filed u/s 139(1). The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

u/s 271AAA of the Act. It was submitted that the legal proposition so laid down continues to apply in context of section 271AAB(1)(a) with a variation of levy of penalty @ 10% as against discharge from levy of penalty under section 271AAA(2) of the Act. In this regard, we refer to the various authorities on the subject