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) of the Act has to be construed strictly. Unless it is\nfound that there is actually a concealment or non-disclosure of the particulars of\nincome, penalty cannot be imposed. In the penalty order there is no finding\nregarding where the concealment is vis-à-vis the returned income. As per the facts\nof the case

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

133(6) and later reopened the assessment under Section 148, alleging that the deposits were unexplained. The assessee did not file an Income Tax Return (ITR), as agricultural income is exempt under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act. He contended that the entire deposit was from the sale of agricultural produce, a common practice in rural areas where

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)

133/- and disallowed 25% of the same, which resulted in addition of Rs. 6,96,783. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 29/06/2018 in appeal No. 603/2014-15. The Id. CIT (A) restricted the addition on the issue of non genuineness of purchases from

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:-

133/- and disallowed 25% of the same, which resulted in addition of Rs. 6,96,783. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 29/06/2018 in appeal No. 603/2014-15. The Id. CIT (A) restricted the addition on the issue of non genuineness of purchases from

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

d) CIT v. Arvind\nJewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available on record are that the Assessee initially filed ROI\n(PB 1) on 18.07.2014 (wherein the deductions u/s 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G\nwere

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

d) CIT v. Arvind\nJewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available on record are that the Assessee initially filed ROI\n(PB 1) on 18.07.2014 (wherein the deductions u/s 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G\nwere

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

d) CIT v. Arvind\nJewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available on record are that the Assessee initially filed ROI\n(PB 1) on 18.07.2014 (wherein the deductions u/s 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G\nwere

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

d) CIT v. Arvind\nJewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available on record are that the Assessee initially filed ROI\n(PB 1) on 18.07.2014 (wherein the deductions u/s 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G\nwere

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

d) CIT v. Arvind\nJewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj).\n10.1 No penalty is legally possible where ROI is held invalid (only for AY 2012-\n13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2015-16):\nThe undisputed facts available on record are that the Assessee initially filed ROI\n(PB 1) on 18.07.2014 (wherein the deductions u/s 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G\nwere

POOJA UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues - As regards amount received by assessee as advance, Tribunal found that since said amount had been shown in balance sheet annexed to original return, there was no intention on part of assessee to conceal - With regard to disallowance qua TDS on account of non-deposit of same with Government, Tribunal

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

133(6) of the Act which 10 Sh. Dayaram Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO was not complied by the assessee. Therefore, notice u/s 148 was issued after recording reasons and taking due approval and questionnaire u/s 142(1) was issued. Adequate opportunities were provided to the assessee by issuing notices u/s 142(1) dated 03.10.2017 fixing hearing for 13.10.2017, 27.10.2017 fixing

BHAWANI SHANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 43/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 cuke Bhawani Shankar Gupta ITO 156, Sindhu Nagar, Vs. Ward 4(1), Murlipura, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

133(6) has been issued on 13/3/2019 to the assessee for verification of filing of ITR and discloser of above transactions & gains/loss thereof but the assessee has not furnished any reply/details. Thus, the then Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that the income to the extent of Rs. 1467932400/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 968/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Shri Suresh Mal Lodha The ACIT 75, Suraj Nagar West, Civil Lines Vs. Circle-6 Jaipur – 302 006 Jaipur LFkk

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Penalty of Rs.18,55,307/- u/s 271(1)(c) FACTS: 1. The brieffacts of the case as stated by our client are that the applicant assessee is an NRI residing in Japan from last 25 years and having his own business at Japan and not filed his ROI for the A.Y. 2015-16 being no taxable income in India originally

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Penalty of Rs.18,55,307/- u/s 271(1)(c) FACTS: 1. The brieffacts of the case as stated by our client are that the applicant assessee is an NRI residing in Japan from last 25 years and having his own business at Japan and not filed his ROI for the A.Y. 2015-16 being no taxable income in India originally

MR. MANOJ KUMAR GOUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 247/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11. cuke Shri Manoj Kumar Gour The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 246, GaneshNagar, Ward 4(3), Opp. Balaji Engg. College, Jaipur. Benad Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AKSPG

KALPANA JHALA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

133(6) of the I.T. Act was issued to the assessee on 19.02.2019, however, no reply has been filed by the assessee. As per ITBA portal assessee has not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13. In this regard, Notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 25.03.2019 and served upon the address through speed