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)

10,463/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I.T. Act?" 3.3 In ITA No. 197/JPR/2024, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,01,50,594/- u/s 271

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

10) of the order\nabove on account of claim of expenditure for State Renewal Fund, prior period\nexpenditure, contribution to CDOS, incorrect claim of deduction u/s 801A &\ndisallowance u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act have been\ninitiated separately.\"\n\nFrom the above it is clear that AO has not recorded any satisfaction for initiation

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)

10) of the order above on account of claim of expenditure for State Renewal Fund, prior period expenditure, contribution to CDOS, incorrect claim of deduction u/s 80IA & disallowance u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act have been initiated separately.” From the above it is clear that AO has not recorded any satisfaction for initiation

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

38 years Director of\nM/s. Superfine Hotels Private Limited, 2nd Floor, J-13, Lal Kothi Yojna,\nNehru Sahakar Marg, Jaipur-302015 do hereby solemnly affirm & declare\noath as under :-\n1. That I am director of M/s Superfine Hotels Private Limited having\nPAN- AALCS0201P and the Learned CIT (A) has passed the order\nu/s 250 for penalty u/s 271

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 has held as under :- “ It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee

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 has held as under :- “ It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

10% 20% or 30% of the undisclosed income. In the absence of specifying the default and charge against the assessee for which the penalty was proposed to be levied the show cause notice issued by the AO and initiation of proceeding for levy of penalty U/s 271AAB are not valid. Hence, following the earlier order of this Tribunal

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

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

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

38) of the IT Act. However, during the course of search and seizure action it was found that the claim was bogus and consequently the assessee declared the income and surrendered to tax. Therefore, bogus claim was detected only during the course of search and seizure action which was admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded under section

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

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

38) of the IT Act. However, during the course of search and seizure action it was found that the claim was bogus and consequently the assessee declared the income and surrendered to tax. Therefore, bogus claim was detected only during the course of search and seizure action which Smt. Aparna Agarwal, Kota. was admitted by the assessee in the statement

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

38) of the IT Act. However, during the Shri Vasudev Agrawal, Kota. course of search and seizure action it was found that the claim was bogus and consequently the assessee declared the income and surrendered to tax. Therefore, bogus claim was detected only during the course of search and seizure action which was admitted by the assessee in the statement

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

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 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

38) of the IT Act. However, during the course of search and seizure action it was found that the claim was bogus and consequently the assessee declared the income and surrendered to tax. Therefore, bogus claim was detected only during the course of search and seizure action which was admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded under section

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

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. The grounds of appeal taken are as under:- ITA. No. 922/JP/2018 for AY 2009-10 “(1) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is illegal