VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should have been imposed by the A.O. under the circumstances of the present case. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied on the written submissions filed before the Bench and the contents

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 and not 271AAB. The Hon’ble High Court after considering the fact that body of the show cause notice and particularly the last line of the notice clearly mentions Section 271AAB of the Act and therefore, the AO will get the benefit of Section 292BB of the I.T. Act. There was no question before the Hon’ble High Court

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty of Rs.1,37,000, u/s 271(1)(c), on the trading additions and commission payment sustained in the quantum proceedings of Rs. 4,42,953, worked out on estimate basis. 5 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 1.2. During the course of quantum proceedings, before the lower authorities, all the details of the purchases made by the assessee

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 and not 271AAB. The Hon’ble High Court after considering the fact that body of the show cause notice and particularly the last line of the notice clearly mentions Section 271AAB of the Act and therefore, the AO will get the benefit of Section 292BB of the I.T. Act. There was no question before the Hon’ble High Court

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 and not 271AAB. The Hon’ble High Court after considering the fact that body of the show cause notice and particularly the last line of the notice clearly mentions Section 271AAB of the Act and therefore, the AO will get the benefit of Section 292BB of the I.T. Act. There was no question before the Hon’ble High Court

SHRI MUKESH MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 and not 271AAB. The Hon’ble High Court 18 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT. after considering the fact that body of the show cause notice and particularly the last line of the notice clearly mentions Section 271AAB of the Act and therefore, the AO will get the benefit of Section 292BB of the I.T. Act. There was no question

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

271(1)(c) whereas in the context of section\n271AAB of the Act even these are not required to be proved whether the\nassessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the particulars\nof income. The approach of the section 271AAB of the Act is completely different\nand there is no such onus on the assessing authority.\nAccording to this

RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act are vitiated since it did not specifically state the grounds mentioned in Sec 271(1)( c) of the Act. Smt. Raj Kumari Maheshwari 13. We are relying on the principle laid down by this bench in the case of M/s Vijay Kedia Vs ACIT in ITA No. 1266/JP/2019 order dated 30/07/2021, wherein identical

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)© , the assessee is found guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs.2,67,647/-. For that reason, I am satisfied that ‘’Assessee’’ has committed default u/s 271(1)( c) of theI.T. Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)( c) is imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly considered by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal No. 474/2015-16. Vide that order Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs.6,01,459/- to Rs.2,67,647/- by applying G.P. Rate @ 12%. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,67,647/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 01-05-2020 wherein the AO imposed the penalty on the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,03,150/- u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:-

Section 271(1)© , the assessee is found guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs.2,67,647/-. For that reason, I am satisfied that ‘’Assessee’’ has committed default u/s 271(1)( c) of theI.T. Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)( c) is imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed. Copy of same order is also enclosed. Therefore by considering the Jurisdictional High Court and ITAT judgement. The penalty levied deserves to be deleted. (4) No penalty can be levied on estimated additions – In this case the Learned Assessing Officer has disallowed 25% of unverifiable purchases and the learned CIT(A) has restricted

SHRI HARISH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 271 (1)(c) must be initiated. Section 271(1)(c) is attracted only when the assessee has concealed his income. When two opinions are possible, adopting one of them can scarcely be viewed as malafide, with intent to evade the payment of income tax. (v) Penalty can not be levied only estimated addition and reliance is placed

SHRI VISHNU TAMBI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

u/s 271 (1)(c) must be initiated. Section 271(1)(c) is attracted only when the assessee has concealed his income. When two opinions are possible, adopting one of them can scarcely be viewed as malafide, with intent to evade the payment of income tax. (v) Penalty can not be levied only estimated addition and reliance is placed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c), the\ncontentions of voluntary surrender to buy peace and avoid litigation\netc. are liable to be rejected and in the context of section 271AAB\neven the question of considering such contentions does not arise.\nFrom the perusal of the statement of the assessee recorded in the\ncourse of search and seizure action it is seen that

VIKRAM SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty amounting to Rs.2,00,043/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on estimated trading additions. The action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the ITA No.143/JP/2016_ 2 Shri Vikram Singh Vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said additions of Rs.2

SWASTIK UDYOG,JAIPUR vs. ITO, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

Section 271(1)© of the Act. The penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The impugned penalty based on such a notice 3 M/s. Swastik Udyog, vs. ITO, Ward- Tonk . being contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be quashed.’’ 2.2 As per ITAT Rule