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)

46,50,173 147-203 2019-20 27.04.2022 3,92,77,480 17,02,82,090 13,10,04,612 204-273 2020-21 26.04.2022 6,69,95,750 18,79,04,440 12,09,08,688 274-324 2021-22 26.04.2022 10,49,04,680 65,30,18,040 54,81,13,364 325-405 Aggrieved from the additions

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)

46,50,173 147-203 2019-20 27.04.2022 3,92,77,480 17,02,82,090 13,10,04,612 204-273 2020-21 26.04.2022 6,69,95,750 18,79,04,440 12,09,08,688 274-324 2021-22 26.04.2022 10,49,04,680 65,30,18,040 54,81,13,364 325-405 Aggrieved from the additions

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-\ncompliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the\nsaid order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings\ncould be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalty proceedings did not hinge on\nthe completion

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

10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-\ncompliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the\nsaid order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings\ncould be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalty proceedings did not hinge on\nthe completion

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c) which provides for separate charge of “concealment of particulars of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”, there is a singular charge under section 271AAB i.e, of the existence of undisclosed income for the specified previous year which is found during the course of search in the case of the assessee. We entirely agree with

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

10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-\ncompliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the\nsaid order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings\ncould be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalty proceedings did not hinge on\nthe completion

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

10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-\ncompliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the\nsaid order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings\ncould be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalty proceedings did not hinge on\nthe completion

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

10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-\ncompliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the\nsaid order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings\ncould be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalty proceedings did not hinge on\nthe completion

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

10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-\ncompliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the\nsaid order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings\ncould be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalty proceedings did not hinge on\nthe completion

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

10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-\ncompliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the\nsaid order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings\ncould be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalty proceedings did not hinge on\nthe completion

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

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

46 of the judgement in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax\nv. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com\n250 (Karnataka)/[2013]\n218 Taxman 423 (Karnataka)/[2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kamataka)/[2013] 263 CTR 153\n(Karnataka) (13-12-2012])\nIn a recent judgment the Supreme Court after referring to the aforesaid\nJudgments in the case of Reliance Petroproducts

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

46,943. Ld. AO levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) w.r.t. this sustained addition. The appellant has relied upon the judgement of honourable ITAT Jaipur bench in the cases of (i) Shri Alok Haldia v. ACIT (2019 (4) TMI 673-ITAT, Jaipur] dated 08.04.2019, () Deepak Dalela Vs ITO in ITA No. 1027/JP/2013 dated 22/12/2016 (iii) Ashok Kumar Gupta

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly considered by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal No. 474/2015-16. Vide that order Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs.6,01,459/- to Rs.2,67,647/- by applying G.P. Rate @ 12%. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,67,647/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 01-05-2020 wherein the AO imposed the penalty on the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,03,150/- u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:-

46,943. Ld. AO levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) w.r.t. this sustained addition. The appellant has relied upon the judgement of honourable ITAT Jaipur bench in the cases of (i) Shri Alok Haldia v. ACIT (2019 (4) TMI 673-ITAT, Jaipur] dated 08.04.2019, () Deepak Dalela Vs ITO in ITA No. 1027/JP/2013 dated 22/12/2016 (iii) Ashok Kumar Gupta