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

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)

iii) exempts from deduction of ITDS on income credited or paid to any Banking Company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 & 3 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’5. Findings:- The grounds of appeal, the submissions made by the appellant

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)

iii) Again it is an undisputed and un-denying fact that due to change of address, the impugned notices did not reach the appellant in time. In the circumstances, the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause from making compliance of the impugned notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act within the meaning of section 273B

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB of the IT Act and a penalty notice was issued accordingly. You are hereby allowed further opportunity of being heard and to show cause why an order imposing penalty on you should not be made u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. 14. As it is evident from the order of the PCIT that he himself admitted that he has not disturbed the assessment that has been made and only passing an order for initiation of levy of penalty by the assessing officer

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. 14. As it is evident from the order of the PCIT that he himself admitted that he has not disturbed the assessment that has been made and only passing an order for initiation of levy of penalty by the assessing officer

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. 14. As it is evident from the order of the PCIT that he himself admitted that he has not disturbed the assessment that has been made and only passing an order for initiation of levy of penalty by the assessing officer

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. 14. As it is evident from the order of the PCIT that he himself admitted that he has not disturbed the assessment that has been made and only passing an order for initiation of levy of penalty by the assessing officer

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. 14. As it is evident from the order of the PCIT that he himself admitted that he has not disturbed the assessment that has been made and only passing an order for initiation of levy of penalty by the assessing officer

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. 14. As it is evident from the order of the PCIT that he himself admitted that he has not disturbed the assessment that has been made and only passing an order for initiation of levy of penalty by the assessing officer

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. 14. As it is evident from the order of the PCIT that he himself admitted that he has not disturbed the assessment that has been made and only passing an order for initiation of levy of penalty by the assessing officer

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. 14. As it is evident from the order of the PCIT that he himself admitted that he has not disturbed the assessment that has been made and only passing an order for initiation of levy of penalty by the assessing officer

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. 14. As it is evident from the order of the PCIT that he himself admitted that he has not disturbed the assessment that has been made and only passing an order for initiation of levy of penalty by the assessing officer

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. 14. As it is evident from the order of the PCIT that he himself admitted that he has not disturbed the assessment that has been made and only passing an order for initiation of levy of penalty by the assessing officer

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. 14. As it is evident from the order of the PCIT that he himself admitted that he has not disturbed the assessment that has been made and only passing an order for initiation of levy of penalty by the assessing officer

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. 14. As it is evident from the order of the PCIT that he himself admitted that he has not disturbed the assessment that has been made and only passing an order for initiation of levy of penalty by the assessing officer

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. 14. As it is evident from the order of the PCIT that he himself admitted that he has not disturbed the assessment that has been made and only passing an order for initiation of levy of penalty by the assessing officer

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

142(1)/143(2) along with questionnaire was issued on 11.11.2014. Meanwhile, the assessee filed an application before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mangi Lal Kandoi vs. ACIT New Delhi [ here in after referred as ITSC ] on 04.03.2015. Various reports including Rule-9 report, reply to Counter Comments under rule 9A and Verification Report were also filed before

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

iii) 30% u/s 271AAB(1)(c). It is the submission of the assessee that a duty was cast upon the Learned Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings specifically and seek reply of the assessee accordingly. But nothing was done of this sort. The show cause notice issued along with the assessment order is also silent regarding the applicability