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) and\ntherefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is imposed on the concealed income for an\namount of Rs.1,34,14

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)

14-15) Where penalty notice issued against assessee was not adverted to any specific limb of 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

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

14-15)\nWhere penalty notice issued against assessee was not adverted to any specific limb of\nsection 271(1)(c), thus, Assessing Officer was not clear whether he intended to levy a\npenalty on assessee for concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars, Tribunal was justified in quashing penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated\nagainst assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(c)\nwere satisfied or fulfilled so as to justify imposition of penalty-\nTribunal merely followed dictum of Supreme Court in several\ndecisions and thus penalty was rightly deleted by Tribunal—Penalty\nhas therefore been rightly deleted-Such a finding essentially based on\nfacts and circumstances peculiar to assessee, does not raise any\nsubstantial question of law-Court directed

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)

14 as under…… - Hence in view of the facts and circumstances as discussed in detail in foregoing paras as well as following the earlier decision of this Tribunal, we hold that the income surrendered by the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4) does not fall in the ambit of definition of undisclosed income as contemplated in Explanation

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

14 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. assessee imposed penalty u/s 271AAA—CIT(A) upheld findings of AO—Held, penalty u/s 271AAA is not leviable where assessee specify manner in which an undisclosed income was derived and also substantiate manner—In instant case no query was raised by authorized officer during course of recording of statement of assessee u/s

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

section (1B). Admittedly, in all the four appeals under consideration, the AO directed to initiate penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act in the assessment orders. Thus, the Revenue can be safely considered to have successfully passed out the first stage. (b) Recording of satisfaction at the penalty stage 14

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

section (1B). Admittedly, in all the four appeals under consideration, the AO directed to initiate penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act in the assessment orders. Thus, the Revenue can be safely considered to have successfully passed out the first stage. (b) Recording of satisfaction at the penalty stage 14

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

14,480/- that was revised to Rs. 15,94,500/- in the return in response to notice u/s 153A. Hence, the pleading on the ground of equity also fails. 5.7 Thus though surrender was during the search in course of statements u/s 132(4), the disclosure u/s 132(4), by itself cannot redeem the appellant from deeming provisions

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that on page 3 of the assessment order, the assessing order, AO observed as under:- 14 Narayana Heights & Tower. “As the assessee has concealed/furnished the inaccurate particulars of income therefore, penalty u/s

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.

section 271(1)(c) the assessee is found guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs 1,14,75,790/- For that reason, I am satisfied that the assessee has committed default uls 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and therefore, penalty u/s

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable. 8. The AO however, imposed penalty @ 120% on the tax on alleged concealed income of Rs.5,92,340/- by holding that as per sub-section (3) of section 132A, provisions of sub-section (4A) to (14

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

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

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable.” 11. In the above factual matrix, we now refer to the contentions advanced by both the parties. Firstly, we refer to the contentions advanced by the ld CIT DR. During the course of hearing, the ld. CIT DR submitted that first of all, ground challenging the legality of order u/s 271

SHRI RAM DAS MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) he had to respond—Notice issued by AO u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was untenable as it suffered from vice of non application of mind—Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) liable to be deleted— Assessee’s appeal allowed. (ii) MUNINAGA REDDY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) he had to respond—Notice issued by AO u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was untenable as it suffered from vice of non application of mind—Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) liable to be deleted— Assessee’s appeal allowed. (ii) MUNINAGA REDDY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

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)

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

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

section (1B). Admittedly, in all the four appeals under consideration, the AO directed to initiate penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act in the assessment orders. Thus, the Revenue can be safely considered to have successfully passed out the first stage. (b) Recording of satisfaction at the penalty stage 14