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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of the present assessee.\nf. Refer Para 26 : Notice u/s 148 was issued for A.Y. 2014-15 by the said\nITO. The Ld. Court has specifically noted that the said notice u/s 148 was barred\nby limitation as per S. 149 and further, there was no satisfaction of the competent\nauthority

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of the present assessee.\nf. Refer Para 26 : Notice u/s 148 was issued for A.Y. 2014-15 by the said\nITO. The Ld. Court has specifically noted that the said notice u/s 148 was barred\nby limitation as per S. 149 and further, there was no satisfaction of the competent\nauthority

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of the present assessee.\nf. Refer Para 26 : Notice u/s 148 was issued for A.Y. 2014-15 by the said\nITO. The Ld. Court has specifically noted that the said notice u/s 148 was barred\nby limitation as per S. 149 and further, there was no satisfaction of the competent\nauthority

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) could not be imposed for each and every notice issued under section 142(1) which

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)

PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) A. SUBMISSIONS BEFORE HON’BLE ITAT DURING QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS 1. Elaborate submissions during quantum proceedings were made before Hon’ble Bench. The same may please be considered in correct perspective [PB 142-158] B. FINDING OF HON’BLE ITAT DURING QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS: 9 SMT. JAMNA DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WRD 7(2), JAIPUR

AMAR BHARTI,JAIPUR vs. ASSTT.. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WARD-1(3), 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)(b) of the Act; warranting any penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act as per intendment of the Legislature defined and interpretation by Judicial Authorities on this point. (iv) In the Appeal Order, the H'ble Appeal Centre had emphasized upon the validity of the 'service' of the impugned notices u/s 142

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)

142(1) were issued on 29.05.2019. In response to these notices, the assessee filed requisite documents. The AO completed assessment u/s 143(3)/147 on 24.07.2019 determining total income of Rs. 12,95,940/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income by issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c) dated 24.07.2019 fixing the date

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)

142(1) were issued. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceeding the ld. AO observed from the data available with him that the assessee has incurred loss of Rs. 39,03,160/- against which he has shown Rs. 39,99,567/- which is taken in multi commodity transaction and loss of Rs. 22,548/- in Future and Options

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s 274 read with Section 271(1) of the Act dated 04-03-2014 and the same is reproduced as under:- 4 DHANRAJ SETHIA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR ‘’Penalty Notice Under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income – Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur PAN:ABUPS0573B Date

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)

142(1)” Thus, it can be clearly seen that the charge upon the assessee was not even clear as the necessary applicable portion has not been ticked or the irrelevant portions have not been strucked off. It has been held in various judicial pronouncements that penalty cannot be levied on the basis of a vague show cause notice i.e when

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

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

142(1) was issued on 08.09.2021, requiring the Appellant to furnish an Income Tax Return (ITR) under Section 148. This notice too remained uncomplied with due to the Appellant’s lack of awareness about the ongoing proceedings 11. Eventually, a Show Cause Notice was issued, seeking an explanation as to why an ex-parte order under Section 144 should

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 respect of the\nundisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1).\n(3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be,\napply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.\nExplanation.—For the purposes of this section,—\n(a) \"specified date\" means the due date

AMIT JAIN,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

142(1) of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings and the assessee has failed to furnish any justifiable explanation for the non-compliance and, therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is leviable for the default(s) under consideration for the given assessment year. The assessee has failed to prove that there was reasonable cause

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

section 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration and accordingly was levied for Rs. 5000/- against the assessee. The AO noticed that during the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued upon the assessee on 30.08.2017, however, the assessee failed to comply to the same nor filed any reply. In view

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

section 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration and accordingly was levied for Rs. 5000/- against the assessee. The AO noticed that during the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued upon the assessee on 30.08.2017, however, the assessee failed to comply to the same nor filed any reply. In view

POORAN SINGH,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

section 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration and accordingly was levied for Rs. 5000/- against the assessee. The AO noticed that during the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued upon the assessee on 30.08.2017, however, the assessee failed to comply to the same nor filed any reply. In view

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1), the assessee\nfurnished return of income on 28-11-2014 declaring total income of Rs.\n10,13,77,660/- which includes the undisclosed income of Rs.10,01,13,351/- which\nhad been accepted by the assessee himself during his statements u/ 132(4) of the\nAct during search. It is noted that the assesee is a partner

KALPANA JHALA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. 5.1 During the appellate proceedings the assessee has disputed the penalty on grounds that she never received any of the notices and that service was not established. However it is admitted that notice u/s 142(1) was received by the tax consultant