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)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be construed strictly. Unless it is found that there is actually a concealment or non-disclosure of the particulars of income, penalty cannot be imposed. In the penalty order there is no finding regarding where the concealment is vis-à-vis the returned income. As per the facts of the case

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

6. Now coming to the penalty proceedings, the same were initiated by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act wherein the AO has made transfer pricing adjustment/addition of Rs. 18,68,02,513/-and has Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT stated that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) is leviable

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

6. Now coming to the penalty proceedings, the same were initiated by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act wherein the AO has made transfer pricing adjustment/addition of Rs. 18,68,02,513/-and has Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT stated that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) is leviable

SHRI MOHAMED MOHTRAM FAROOQUI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

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

133 A. 17. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that no penalty could be levied on the facts and circumstances of the present case by invoking Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c). Once the said Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) is held to be in applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive claim of deduction amounting

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive claim of deduction amounting

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive claim of deduction amounting

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) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated and/or imposed i.e., whether for concealment particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The impugned penalty order being contrary to the judicial principle laid down kindly be quashed. 4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

133 ITR 7 (Del). Kindly refer Para 6-7 of Rakesh Nain (supra). 11.4 Further reliance on the case of Mallelil Industries (P.) Ltd (2022) 139 taxmann.com 7 (Kerala) is also wrongly placed in as much as that was a case where the assessment order u/s 143(3) was set aside by the ld. CIT u/s 263 and pursuant thereto

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

133 ITR 7 (Del). Kindly refer Para 6-7 of Rakesh Nain (supra). 11.4 Further reliance on the case of Mallelil Industries (P.) Ltd (2022) 139 taxmann.com 7 (Kerala) is also wrongly placed in as much as that was a case where the assessment order u/s 143(3) was set aside by the ld. CIT u/s 263 and pursuant thereto

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

133 ITR 7 (Del). Kindly refer Para 6-7 of Rakesh Nain (supra). 11.4 Further reliance on the case of Mallelil Industries (P.) Ltd (2022) 139 taxmann.com 7 (Kerala) is also wrongly placed in as much as that was a case where the assessment order u/s 143(3) was set aside by the ld. CIT u/s 263 and pursuant thereto

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

133 ITR 7 (Del). Kindly refer Para 6-7 of Rakesh Nain (supra). 11.4 Further reliance on the case of Mallelil Industries (P.) Ltd (2022) 139 taxmann.com 7 (Kerala) is also wrongly placed in as much as that was a case where the assessment order u/s 143(3) was set aside by the ld. CIT u/s 263 and pursuant thereto

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

133 ITR 7 (Del). Kindly refer Para 6-7 of Rakesh Nain (supra). 11.4 Further reliance on the case of Mallelil Industries (P.) Ltd (2022) 139 taxmann.com 7 (Kerala) is also wrongly placed in as much as that was a case where the assessment order u/s 143(3) was set aside by the ld. CIT u/s 263 and pursuant thereto

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

133 ITR 7 (Del). Kindly refer Para 6-7 of Rakesh Nain (supra). 11.4 Further reliance on the case of Mallelil Industries (P.) Ltd (2022) 139 taxmann.com 7 (Kerala) is also wrongly placed in as much as that was a case where the assessment order u/s 143(3) was set aside by the ld. CIT u/s 263 and pursuant thereto

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

133 ITR 7 (Del). Kindly refer Para 6-7 of Rakesh Nain (supra). 11.4 Further reliance on the case of Mallelil Industries (P.) Ltd (2022) 139 taxmann.com 7 (Kerala) is also wrongly placed in as much as that was a case where the assessment order u/s 143(3) was set aside by the ld. CIT u/s 263 and pursuant thereto

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

133 ITR 7 (Del). Kindly refer Para 6-7 of Rakesh Nain (supra). 11.4 Further reliance on the case of Mallelil Industries (P.) Ltd (2022) 139 taxmann.com 7 (Kerala) is also wrongly placed in as much as that was a case where the assessment order u/s 143(3) was set aside by the ld. CIT u/s 263 and pursuant thereto

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

133 ITR 7 (Del). Kindly refer Para 6-7 of Rakesh Nain (supra). 11.4 Further reliance on the case of Mallelil Industries (P.) Ltd (2022) 139 taxmann.com 7 (Kerala) is also wrongly placed in as much as that was a case where the assessment order u/s 143(3) was set aside by the ld. CIT u/s 263 and pursuant thereto

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

133 ITR 7 (Del). Kindly refer Para 6-7 of Rakesh Nain (supra). 11.4 Further reliance on the case of Mallelil Industries (P.) Ltd (2022) 139 taxmann.com 7 (Kerala) is also wrongly placed in as much as that was a case where the assessment order u/s 143(3) was set aside by the ld. CIT u/s 263 and pursuant thereto