KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

148. Meanwhile, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section\n271(1)(c) for concealment of income while rejecting the assessee's contention\nthat he had revised his returns suo motu and had offered additional income to\nbuy peace of mind and to avoid litigation. On appeal, the Commissioner\n(Appeals) affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. However, on further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

148.]\nAccordingly as there is no adverse impact on the tax liability due to the change of\nhead of income in the present case, considering the explanation 4 in sub section\n(1) in the section 271 no penalty is leviable due to this aspect.\nFurther, regarding the surrender during survey, the penalty was initiated in the\nassessment order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

148.]\nAccordingly as there is no adverse impact on the tax liability due to the change of head of income in the present case, considering the explanation 4 in sub section (1) in the section 271 no penalty is leviable due to this aspect.\nFurther, regarding the surrender during survey, the penalty was initiated in the assessment order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

148. However in the present case the return of income was filed by the appellant u/s 139(1) of the Act wherein the income surrendered during the survey was duly disclosed. The argument in the penalty order that penalty was initiated in assessment order u/s 153A is immaterial as the surrendered stock was detected during earlier survey, and ITR u/s

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.6,37,200/-\nconfirmed by him in quantum proceedings.\n2.\nThe appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal.\n3.\nNecessary cost be awarded to the assessee.\n3.\nSince both the appeals are of the same assessee and related to\nsame assessment year and argued

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

1) of the Act. That is what is the legislative intent of 'service of notice' on assessee under this section that no assessment under section 147 can be finalized before the assessee has sufficient notice thereof." Taking into consideration, the notice which was sent under section 148 on March 22, 2010, on the address where the assessee was not residing

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

1) of the Act, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2022 requiring him to file ITR for the AY 2015-16. However, in response there, the assessee did not file his ITR u/s 148 of the Act. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

1) of the Act, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2022 requiring him to file ITR for the AY 2015-16. However, in response there, the assessee did not file his ITR u/s 148 of the Act. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the present case had been levied on the basis that the assessee had not shown the long term capital gain while filing the original return of income. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee had drawn attention of the Bench towards section 148

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

271(1)(c) Assessing Officer alleged that assessee had concealed its income, orders imposing penalty were invalid and liable to be cancelled. [In favor of assessee] 8 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 8 In view of the above facts and judicial decisions, the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 the assessee filed Return of Income on 07.11.2019 declaring income of Rs. 42,30,170.00. Due tax as per provisions of section 115BBE was paid by the assessee before filing the revised Return of income. At this juncture would like to draw your honours kind attention to section 271 AAC (1) which reads

AMIT JAIN,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(b) of the Act is leviable for the default(s) under consideration for the given assessment year. The assessee has failed to prove that there was reasonable cause as per the section 2738 of the Act for non- compliance to the statutory notice(s) in question. 7. As has been stated in the assessment order as well

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

u/s\n271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act were initiated along with the assessment order\ndated 29.09.2010, for filing inaccurate particulars of income and\nconcealing the income. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment\norder and the ld.CIT(A) provided partial relief to the assessee.\nConsequent to the order passed by CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings,\nthe AO levied

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

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

penalties under section 271(1)(b),271(1)(c) and 271F is warranted and is completely illegal and anti-vires the provisions of the law for which it was created. Addition in income u/s section 69A and Penal provisions needs due attention and needs to be exercised with great caution. Hence no such action is tenable in the eyes

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

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)

148, return of income was filed on 24.04.2018 at total income of Rs.15,820. Following is the summary of the actions of the authorities at various levels in respect of quantum and penalty proceedings. Particulars Addition Confirmed by Confirmed by Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by AO CIT(A) ITAT levied by AO and Order Date Order dated confirmed

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

u/s\n271(1)(c) holding that:\n“Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For concealment of\nincome – Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessee filed return for AY 2011-12,\ndeclaring income and capital gains, which was processed under Section 143(1)\nRevenue, suspecting suppression of capital gains, issued a summons. Assessee\nadmitted a mistake In computation