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)

14 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. 21. Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee wonder Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed sunder Section 139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271

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

3)\ndt.31.12.2015 wherever any addition/ disallowance is made, there is no reference of\ninitiation of penalty proceedings though in para 11 of the order penalty proceeding is stated\nto be initiated against certain additions for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\nHoweverat the end of the assessment order it is stated that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)\nhave been initiated

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 271(1)(c) initiated against assessee

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 u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposed on the furnishing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

3) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RENU\nAGARWAL\nIN THE ITAT JAIPURITA No. 764/JP/2015(2017) 185 TTJ 0036\n(Jp) ((UO))\nLevy of Penalty u/s.271(1)(c)—Deletion—AO levied penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB by\nholding that assessee had made wrong claim of deduction u/s 80IB-\nAO levied penalty

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)

3 of Section 271AAB of the Act talks about issuing the notice u/s 274 of the Act. So for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act the first step to be taken by Ld. A.O is to issue a valid notice u/s 274 of the Act. Sub-section (1) to Section 274 of the Act provides a procedure

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)

3 of Section 271AAB of the Act talks about issuing the notice u/s 274 of the Act. So for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act the first step to be taken by Ld. A.O is to issue a valid notice u/s 274 of the Act. Sub-section (1) to Section 274 of the Act provides a procedure

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)

3 of Section 271AAB of the Act talks about issuing the notice u/s 274 of the Act. So for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act the first step to be taken by Ld. A.O is to issue a valid notice u/s 274 of the Act. Sub-section (1) to Section 274 of the Act provides a procedure

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

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 SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) of section 271AAB the provisions of section 274 and 275 as far as may be applied in relation to the penalty referred in this section which means that 11 Shri Ram Das Sonkia, Jaipur. before imposing the penalty under sec. 271AAB, the AO has to issue a show cause notice and give a proper opportunity of hearing

SHRI KRISHNA YADAV,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[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. 13 Shri Krishna Yadav vs. DCIT Explanation.—For the purposes

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

14 as under :- “12. Now, coming to another contention of the ld AR where he has challenged the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that penalty U/s 271AAB is mandatory in nature and there is no discretion with the Income tax authorities. It was submitted by the ld AR that in section 271AAB, the word ‘may’ is used instead

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

14 as under :- “12. Now, coming to another contention of the ld AR where he has challenged the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that penalty U/s 271AAB is mandatory in nature and there is no discretion with the Income tax authorities. It was submitted by the ld AR that in section 271AAB, the word ‘may’ is used instead

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

14 as under :- “12. Now, coming to another contention of the ld AR where he has challenged the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that penalty U/s 271AAB is mandatory in nature and there is no discretion with the Income tax authorities. It was submitted by the ld AR that in section 271AAB, the word ‘may’ is used instead

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

14 as under :- Shri Ajay Agarwal, Kota. “12. Now, coming to another contention of the ld AR where he has challenged the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that penalty U/s 271AAB is mandatory in nature and there is no discretion with the Income tax authorities. It was submitted by the ld AR that in section 271AAB, the word

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

14 as under :- “12. Now, coming to another contention of the ld AR where he has challenged the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that penalty U/s 271AAB is mandatory in nature and there is no discretion with the Income tax authorities. It was submitted by the ld AR that in section 271AAB, the word ‘may’ is used instead