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

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)

2 PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LD. AO OF RS.1,37,000 U/S 271(1)(C). [Submissions apropos Ground No. 1 have been made subsequently] 1. SUBMISSION 1.1. Ld. AO passed the penalty order, imposing penalty of Rs.1,37,000, u/s 271(1)(c), on the trading additions and commission payment sustained in the quantum proceedings

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

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

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

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

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

2), Jaipur.\n2.\nIn this appeal, the revenue has raised following ground: -\n\"Ground No. 1 whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 66,97,445/-\nlevied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act ignoring

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

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

145(3) and rejecting the books of accounts regularly maintained and duly audited and holding that the books of accounts were not absolutely reliable. Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT 7) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly upholding the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c), which is unjustified, unwarranted

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

145(3) and rejecting the books of accounts regularly maintained and duly audited and holding that the books of accounts were not absolutely reliable. Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT 7) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly upholding the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c), which is unjustified, unwarranted

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

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

145 and the action of ld CIT(A) deserves to be set aside The ld CIT(A) held that the assessee has recorded bogus sales to the extent Rs. 6,76,59,000/- which shall be reduced from sales shown by the appellant for the year. At the same time, he has accepted all the other entries of books

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

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)

145(3) of the Act and in assuming the net profit at the rate of 10 percent against the net profit at the rate of 8 percent declared by the assessee appellant and in making the differential addition of Rs. 3,63,912/-. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. lower authorities

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)

145(3) of the Act and in assuming the net profit at the rate of 10 percent against the net profit at the rate of 8 percent declared by the assessee appellant and in making the differential addition of Rs. 3,63,912/-. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. lower authorities

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

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

271 AAC were initiated as the AO opined that the appellant had\nincome from an undisclosed sources u/s.69A of the IT Act. Since the penalty\nproceedings initiated were backed by valid reasons, this ground of appeal is\ndismissed. Further, Penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty if any will be\nlevied by the AO by a separate order. Therefore, this ground

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

u/s 148 he accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that the income for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some other income. And if he intends to do so a fresh notice

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as discussed above. 8. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised by the assessee the relevant finding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as discussed above. 8. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised by the assessee the relevant finding