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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHAKUNTLAM COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act ignoring the fact that the assessee has\nnot disclosed the profit on the advances received from the customer and\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of income. So first we would like to\nexamine what tantamount to \"furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\",\nthe Act does not give any definition. Thus, we see the meaning

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 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

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

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 of the Constitution, by way of section 2 read with first schedule to the Finance Act. The Court thus having regard to the legislative history held that surcharge and additional surcharge (Cess) being charged in addition to income tax in exercise of constitutional powers are nothing but tax on income. Levy of Cess in addition to income

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The appellant craves the right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing. 3. The fact as culled out from the record is that the assessee has filed his e-return of Income

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) on ground that there was concealment and non-furnishing of particulars of income - It was noted that assessee had not produced and bills/invoices to establish purchases from creditors -Furthermore, certificate from some suppliers was furnished however same did not mention any outstanding liability - High Court held that mere acceptance of entirety of purchases and disclosure of name

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) on ground that there was concealment and non-furnishing of particulars of income - It was noted that assessee had not produced and bills/invoices to establish purchases from creditors -Furthermore, certificate from some suppliers was furnished however same did not mention any outstanding liability - High Court held that mere acceptance of entirety of purchases and disclosure of name

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The appellant craves leave to add or to amend the foregoing ground of appeal, if it becomes necessary to do so in the interest of justice.” 3. The fact as culled out from the record is that in this case originally return of income was e-filed on 30.09.2013 declaring

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 separately. 3. The appellant was requested repeatedly to file reply. During the course of appellate proceedings vide notice dated 03/02/2021. 06/02/2023, 23/02/2023 & 06/03/2023. However no submissions were made during the entire appellate proceedings. The appellant during the appellate proceedings did not comply with the notices and hence made

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

u/s 142(1). The notice u/s 142(1) required a lot of details, which was a time-consuming process. SCN was not even served Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT and after giving a very short duration to submit details u/s 142(1), order was passed with preconceived mind set. iii) The learned authority passed the order mentioning the reason

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

u/s 142(1). The notice u/s 142(1) required a lot of details, which was a time-consuming process. SCN was not even served Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT and after giving a very short duration to submit details u/s 142(1), order was passed with preconceived mind set. iii) The learned authority passed the order mentioning the reason

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

u/s 80HHC of the Act. On the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer from investigation he considered the entry for export of 70 lacs as bogus. He denied benefit u/s 80HHC of the Act. Further, he made addition of Rs. 70 lacs in the income u/s 68 of the Act. It was held that once the assessee

YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

145(3) and rejecting the books of\naccounts regularly maintained and duly audited and holding that the\nbooks of accounts were not absolutely reliable.\n7) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly\nupholding the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c), which is\nunjustified, unwarranted and bad in law.\n8) The Learned

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2017-18 to 2018-19 (as applicable) is leviable in these cases. The levy of penalty is considered separately in this order.” Thus the Hon’ble Settlement Commission has also, in principle, accepted that

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2012-13 to 2016- 17 and u/s 271AAC r.w.s 245H(1) for AYs 2017-18 to 2018-19 (as applicable) is leviable in these cases. The levy of penalty is considered separately in this order.” Thus the Hon’ble Settlement Commission has also, in principle, accepted that