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)

9 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. Accordingly as there is no adverse impact on the tax liability due to the change of head of income in the present case, considering the explanation 4 in sub section (1) in the section 271 no penalty is leviable due to this aspect. Further, regarding the surrender during survey, the penalty was initiated

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.

9. As per the above referred decision of this Court, the notice would have to specifically state the ground mentioned in Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act namely as to whether it is for the concealment of income or furnishing incorrect particulars of the income said penalty proceedings is being initiated. Second aspect is that, as held by this

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)

9 R. P. Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT revised return pursuant to filing of return in response to notice under section 153A of the Act and the provisions of section 139(5) are equally applicable in case of return filed pursuant to notice under section 153A of the Act. It is well settled that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings

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)

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 to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) “specified date” means

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)

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 to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) “specified date” means

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

9][In favour of assessee]”\nIn that case also, after filing ROI the revenue suspected suppression of capital\ngain and therefore, initiated inquiry by issuing summons u/s 131 and the\nassessee while preparing the details for onward submissions, realised that he\ncommitted an inadvertent mistake (while preparing the reply) and on the review\nof the return initially filed therefore, offered

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

9][In favour of assessee]”\nIn that case also, after filing ROI the revenue suspected suppression of capital\ngain and therefore, initiated inquiry by issuing summons u/s 131 and the\nassessee while preparing the details for onward submissions, realised that he\ncommitted an inadvertent mistake (while preparing the reply) and on the review\nof the return initially filed therefore, offered

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

9][In favour of assessee]”\nIn that case also, after filing ROI the revenue suspected suppression of capital\ngain and therefore, initiated inquiry by issuing summons u/s 131 and the\nassessee while preparing the details for onward submissions, realised that he\ncommitted an inadvertent mistake (while preparing the reply) and on the review\nof the return initially filed therefore, offered

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

9][In favour of assessee]”\nIn that case also, after filing ROI the revenue suspected suppression of capital\ngain and therefore, initiated inquiry by issuing summons u/s 131 and the\nassessee while preparing the details for onward submissions, realised that he\ncommitted an inadvertent mistake (while preparing the reply) and on the review\nof the return initially filed therefore, offered

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

9][In favour of assessee]”\nIn that case also, after filing ROI the revenue suspected suppression of capital\ngain and therefore, initiated inquiry by issuing summons u/s 131 and the\nassessee while preparing the details for onward submissions, realised that he\ncommitted an inadvertent mistake (while preparing the reply) and on the review\nof the return initially filed therefore, offered

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the other mandatory conditions of section 271AAB. Certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically is not a correct notice in the eyes

SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

9 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur Assessing officer has to examine the satisfaction of ancillary conditions as specified under clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c) to sub-section (1) to Section 271AAB. Merely because the quantum of penalty varies from 10% to 30% subject to compliances with the ancilliary conditions, it cannot be said that where

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). That is clearly not the intendment of the legislature.” 3. No penalty in S.148 cases: 3.1 It is further pertinent to note that in the cases where the assessee did not disclose the income in the return of income filed originally but later on when notice u/s 148 (or u/s 153A) has been issued

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c), the penalty is leviable if the appellant is not able to substantiate the explanation offered by him and fails to prove that such explanation is bonafide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him. The assessment order, the order

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

9) comes to 6715.6 gms. Whereas, the\nweight of the 18 cts. gold studded jewellery as per the stock details, as per the\nbooks of accounts has submitted by the appellant comes to 5799.42 gms. is\nincorrect, for the reason that the learned CIT(A) has added the weight of 22 cts\nstudded gold jewellery in the 18 cts gold

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

139(1) of the Act and thus when the income has already been offered and declared in the income tax return, no penalty is leviable. From the perusal of the judgements on the issue it is understood that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on the income offered in the income tax return under section 153A

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 the assessee filed Return of Income on 07.11.2019 declaring income of Rs. 42,30,170.00. Due tax as per provisions of section 115BBE was paid by the assessee before filing the revised Return of income. At this juncture would like to draw your honours kind attention to section 271 AAC (1) which reads

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in\nrespect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 21[or sub-\nsection (1A)].\n(3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in\nrelation to the penalty referred to in this section.\nExplanation.—For the purposes of this section,—\n(a) \"specified