KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

11. In the instant case, the notice initiating the penalty proceedings talks\nabout initiation of penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of\nundisclosed income of the specified previous year. However, while passing the\npenalty proceedings, the Assessing officer has given a clear finding as reflected\nin the penalty order that the assessee is liable for penalty U/s

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

11. In the instant case, the notice initiating the penalty proceedings talks\nabout initiation of penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of\nundisclosed income of the specified previous year. However, while passing the\npenalty proceedings, the Assessing officer has given a clear finding as reflected\nin the penalty order that the assessee is liable for penalty U/s

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

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

Section 271(1)(c), penalty is not leviable\nsince the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s.\n139(1) of the Act. This view of our is supported by the Co-ordinate Benches of the\nTribunal in the case of CIT vs. Jupiter Distillery [2012] 23 taxmann.com 303\n(Ahmedabad - Trib

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

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

Section 271(1)(c), penalty is not leviable since the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s.\n139(1) of the Act. This view of our is supported by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Jupiter Distillery [2012] 23 taxmann.com 303 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) and in the case

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)

2. 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(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 4 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. 1961 ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied for concealing the income

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)

11 of the penalty order AO held that the disallowance represent concealment of income and thus imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. From the above facts it is abundantly clear that the AO did not specify as to under which limb of sec. 271(1)(c) the assessee is required to explain his case. In the notice issued u/s

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

11 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton &\nGinning Factory (supra)] wherein it is observed that concealment of income and\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different\nmeanings/ connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to\nonly one of the two breaches mentioned under Section 271

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

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)

2) No penalty under the provisions of [section 270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) [or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation

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)

2) No penalty under the provisions of [section 270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) [or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation

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 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB of the IT Act and a penalty notice was issued accordingly. You are hereby allowed further opportunity of being heard and to show cause why an order imposing penalty on you should not be made u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 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)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

11 of 13) [ITA- 197/2018] the IT Act, as a return filed pursuant to a notice subsequently issued u/s 148 of the Act. However, once an assessee itself declare before the AO that his earlier return could be treated as filed pursuant to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, three results can follow. Assessing Officer can either

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty levied by the AO for all these

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty levied by the AO for all these

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

11-12 and 12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty levied by the AO for all these

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 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)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

11 of 13) [ITA-197/2018] the IT Act, as a return filed pursuant to a notice subsequently issued u/s 148 of the Act. However, once an assessee itself declare before the AO that his earlier return could be treated as filed pursuant to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, three results can follow. Assessing Officer can either

SHRI RAM DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) No penalty under the provisions of 53[section 270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 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

SHRI KRISHNA YADAV,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

u/s 271AAB was mandatory. Secondly the provisions of section 271AAB(3) lay down that penalty shall be levied under the section with reference to section 274. In other words the provisions of section shall apply in levying penalty under this section. Section 274 speaks that “ No order imposing penalty under this chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been