ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 145(3) and looking to the fact and circumstances of the case the entire amount of bogus purchases of Rs. 6,26,90,957/- made with M/s Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 2,13,72,050/-, M/s Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 2,83,18,907/- and from M/s Olive Overseas

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 145(3) and looking to the fact and circumstances of the case the entire amount of bogus purchases of Rs. 6,26,90,957/- made with M/s Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 2,13,72,050/-, M/s Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 2,83,18,907/- and from M/s Olive Overseas

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.

3 of the assessment order, the assessing officer, A.O. observed as under: - "As the assessee has concealed/furnished the inaccurate particulars of income therefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is also initiated." 3.3 As per section 271 (1) (c), the assessing officer is empowered to impose penalty if in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that at the outset, it is submitted that AO in the body of the order has mentioned that assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. At the end of the order, penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income. In the notice issued u/s

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

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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 40(a)(ia) provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are generally allowed under the general section. The computation u/s.29 has to be made u/s.145 on the basis of books of account regularly maintained by the assessee which the Assessing Officer did by estimating the profit at 5% of the sales. The learned Counsel

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

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

u/s 271AAB.\nHowever this contention of the appellant is misfounded as is not such condition\nfor the levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act.\nThe acceptance during the course of search and seizure action and the offering of\nthe income in the return of income on these accounts is guided by the principle of\nsection

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

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

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

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 143(3) rw.s. 153C of the Act without appreciating the facts and submissions made during the course of assessment proceedings, which is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 6) That Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the invocation of the provisions of section 145(3) and rejecting the books of accounts regularly maintained and duly

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 143(3) rw.s. 153C of the Act without appreciating the facts and submissions made during the course of assessment proceedings, which is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 6) That Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the invocation of the provisions of section 145(3) and rejecting the books of accounts regularly maintained and duly

YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

u/s 143(3)\nrw.s. 153C of the Act without appreciating the facts and submissions\nmade during the course of assessment proceedings, which is\nunjustified, unwarranted and excessive.\n6) That Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the\ninvocation of the provisions of section 145(3) and rejecting the books of\naccounts regularly maintained and duly