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

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

11-2006 and cash was found from possession of assessee Assessee had drawn cash flow statement for entire period of six years in order to determine undisclosed income based on seized material for each of six assessment years - Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed by invoking Explanation 5 in assessment year 2004-05 in respect

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

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

u/s 271 (1) (c) is\nimposed on the concealed income as per working given below.\"\nAs against the above argument, the appellant has relied upon number of\njudgments of honorable courts and Tribunal in his submissions.\nSome of the judgments on the issue are as under:-\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. SAS Pharmaceuticals [2011] 11 taxmann.com\n207 (Delhi

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)

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. 4. It is further submitted that in Para 11 of the assessment order the penalty proceedings

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

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.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, if the decision of this Court in case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) is considered, the resultant effect would be that the notice in question issued under Section 271(1)(c) for levy of penalty and consequently the penalty imposed, both would be unsustainable and cannot stand

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(1)(c)\nof I.T. Act, 1961 imposing penalty being 100% of tax leviable on\nfollowing income treating same as concealed income of assessee-\nFurther AO also imposed penalty u/s 271AAA by passing separate\norder on alleged undisclosed income which she determined by treating\nland under JV as outright sale on income therefore on same income\ntwo different penalties

DWARKA GEMS LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

11 (SC)\nat page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income carry different connotations. Thus, these are two limbs of\nsection 271(1)(c) of the Act and the officer initiating penalty has to clearly specify\nas to under which limb the penalty is being proposed to be imposed. The Hon'ble\nKarnataka High

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

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

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

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

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

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

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

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

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

section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty\nFor concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose\nof imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments\nmade u/s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered\nHeld, yes - Whether concealment of income has to be seen with reference

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)

6 R.P. Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer. and stereotyped and does not specify the default or any venal breach of the specific penal provisions of the Income Tax Act committed by the assessee. Further, Assessing Officer Central Circle-Ajmer levied the penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act when no such penalty u/s 271AAB

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)

11. This now takes us to next contention of the ld AR regarding amount surrendered during the course of search not qualifying as an “undisclosed income” u/s 271AAB r/w explanation thereto and merely surrender made in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) is not sufficient for levy of penalty. It is a settled legal proposition that the penalty provisions needs

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)

11. In fact, when the AO recommended the initiation of penalty proceedings the AO appeared to be conscious of the fact that he did not have the power to issue notice as far as the penalty proceedings under Section 271-E was concerned. He, therefore, referred the matter concerning penalty proceedings under Section 271-E to the Additional

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)

11. In fact, when the AO recommended the initiation of penalty proceedings the AO appeared to be conscious of the fact that he did not have the power to issue notice as far as the penalty proceedings under Section 271-E was concerned. He, therefore, referred the matter concerning penalty proceedings under Section 271-E to the Additional

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)

6. Thereafter, Ld Assessing Officer issued a stereotyped show cause Notice u/s 271 read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act without specifying the specific default of section 271AAB(1A) of the I.T.Act, i.e either default of clause (a) or default of clause (b) of the said sub section. Prior to the imposition of penalty another stereotyped show cause

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, 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. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

section 271 (1) (c) are mentioned or where show cause notice u/s 271 (1) (c) for imposing of penalty without specifying the limb for reasons to impose penalty whether 7 ITA 1266/JP/2019_ M/s Vijay Kedia Vs ACIT for concealment of income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income is not as per law and assessing officer did not have any jurisdiction