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

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\nAssessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed\nunder section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While\nframing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\nAssessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed\nunder section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While\nframing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\nAssessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed\nunder section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While\nframing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\nAssessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed\nunder section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While\nframing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\nAssessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed\nunder section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While\nframing assessment, penalty proceedings under section 271

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

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

u/s 271(1)(c). I therefore, proceed to levy penalty of Rs. 7,73,859/-. ” 30 M/s Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 21. We therefore find that uncertain charge at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings is followed by a certain charge and definite finding at the time of passing the penalty proceedings as to the concealment

SHRI KANHEYA LAL,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

271(1)(c) of the Act by filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) however, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty while passing the impugned order. The submissions made before the ld. CIT(A) as well before the tribunal are reproduced as under:- “It is humbly requested that in this case the decision

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.”

150 (SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act not specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently the penalty order was set aside. The ld. A/R has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction

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

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

150 (SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act not specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently the penalty order was set aside. The ld. A/R has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction

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

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

150 (SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act not specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently the penalty order was set aside. The ld. A/R has also 4 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court

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

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

150 (SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act not specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently the penalty order was set aside. The ld. A/R has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

150 (SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act not specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently the penalty order was set aside. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

150 (SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act not specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently the penalty order was set aside. The ld. A/R has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

150 (SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act not specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently the penalty order was set aside. The ld. A/R has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction

SHRI RAVI MATHUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

150 (SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act not specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently the penalty order was set aside. The ld. A/R has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction