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.\nRefer 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)

271 (1) If the [Assessing] Officer or the [*] [Commissioner (Appeals)] [or the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner] in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that any person- (a) 5656[***] (b) has failed to comply with a notice 58 [under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or under sub-section (2) of section 115WE or] under sub- section

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

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

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 IT ACT, 1961 During the Assessment proceeding, on account of assessee’s failure to comply with the statutory notice issued U/s 142(1) on various dates the hearing was fixed for 28.09.2017. On the appointed date, neither anybody attended nor any written reply was furnished. On the said date also, there was no response

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

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

u/s 69A as is framed in the impugned assessment order. 1.2. A bank statement showing correlation of sale date and deposits dates. 2. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in charging interest under the provisions of section 234A and section 234B of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1. Without prejudice the rate, period

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. Thus, in our view penalty levied u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act is unsustainable. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty. In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed." Therefore, considering the facts of the case it cannot be said that the assessee

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)

2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts by approving the action of the Ld. A.O of imposing penalty also on the turnover which was declared by the assessee under section 44AD of the act. The penalty thus imposed

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

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, failed to furnish such return before the end of the relevant assessment year, the AO may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of five thousand rupees. In view of this fact, I am not in a position to take a divergent view from the action of the AO. Therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271F

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, failed to furnish such return before the end of the relevant assessment year, the AO may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of five thousand rupees. In view of this fact, I am not in a position to take a divergent view from the action of the AO. Therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271F

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, failed to furnish such return before the end of the relevant assessment year, the AO may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of five thousand rupees. In view of this fact, I am not in a position to take a divergent view from the action of the AO. Therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271F

RAJKUMAR ASNANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or\nthe assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that\nthere was reasonable cause for the said failure.\"\nFrom a perusal of the above provisions, we can understand that, notwithstanding anything\ncontained in the provisions of clause