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

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

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

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

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 6

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 6

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)

section 271 (1)(b) amounting to Rs. 30,000/- without appreciating the fact that the appellant had a reasonable cause. 3. That the Learned CIT(Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the levy of penalty without the Assessing Officer having issued precise and specific notice for each default u/s 271 (1)(b) as envisaged in the provisions

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)

271(1)(c ), but the ratio behind the same is that whenever any penal proceedings are initiated against the assessee, there must be a specific charge in the notice by which jurisdiction is assumed. In absence of same, the assessee is not able to reply to same and hence it vitiates the entire proceedings. 11 Bhawani Shankar Gupta

DEVIKA BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

6. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated mechanically without recording proper satisfaction. Mere disallowance of an expense does not attract penalty unless the claim was false or made with the intent to evade tax. 7. The appellant reserves the right to add, modify, alter, or delete

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)

271(1)(c ), but the ratio behind the same is that whenever any penal proceedings are initiated against the assessee, there must be a specific charge in the notice by which jurisdiction is assumed. In absence of same, the assessee is not able to reply to same and hence it vitiates the entire proceedings. With the above submissions, we hereby

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

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

penalties under section 271(1)(b),271(1)(c) and 271F is warranted and is completely illegal and anti-vires the provisions of the law for which it was created. Addition in income u/s section 69A and Penal provisions needs due attention and needs to be exercised with great caution. Hence no such action is tenable in the eyes

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

271 D is independent section where 1st limb of section in not applicable by the assessee and whereas second limb of section is applicable in 13 Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal vs. JCIT assessee case in case penalty was initiated on 07.08.2019 and from the end of 1st Sept 2019. In the present case, whereas the penalty was initiated

LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

u/s 271(1)(c) which was based on an estimate of income made by the AO. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is clear that the penalty so confirmed in the instant case cannot be sustained because it was imposed by the AO on the estimate of income made by him. We, therefore, order for the deletion of penalty

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)

section 143(2) was issued on 18.10.2010 i.e. only after 5 months. Therefore, it cannot be said that revised return was filed voluntarily by assessee. 2.3.2 Further, Assessing Officer in assessment order initiated penalty by specifically mentioning that assessee has concealed income and finally imposed penalty on concealment of income. This shows the clear finding on Assessing Officer's part