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)

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the AssessingOfficer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose ofpenalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied on the income

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

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

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the AssessingOfficer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose ofpenalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied on the income

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

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

153 A viz-a-viz the assessed income.However, the facts\nof the present case are on much stronger footing because the assessee admitted\nadditional income before the closing of previous year itself and included in the ROI\nfiled u/s 139(1) of the Act.\n7.2\nFurther, behind issuing a notice u/s 153A, the legislative intent is, to give a\nsecond

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, 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. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

271(1)(C), 271A and 271B. Section 158 BFA provides for levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BG specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except those as provided in Chapter

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

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

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

153 Taxman 226) respectively where it was held that where the assessee surrenders his full income, though at a later stage, there was no question of any concealment on his part and consequently no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable, and that a omission from retum of income did not amount to concealment. 11. In view

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)

153 (PUNE):- “..The views expressed by Their Lordships in Dharamendra Textile Processors’ case (supra) cannot be viewed as an authority for the proposition that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) is an automatic consequence of an addition being made to income of the taxpayer, for the reason that whether it is a civil liability or a criminal liability, penalty

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 153 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayers: “On 16.03.2022, I received the order of Commissioner (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, in my case for assessment year

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer ought to have been recorded his satisfaction. However, Ld. AO has failed to do so. The same is in violation of CBDT Circular no. 09/DV/2016 dated 26.04.2016 advising Assessing Officer to make a reference

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

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

153 (Karnataka) [13-12-2012])\nThe object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanations\nindicates that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss\nof revenue. The penalty under that provision is a civil liability. Wilful concealment\nis not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

153 of the I.T. Act. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of S.D.V. Chandu (supra), we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Explanation 5(2) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

153 of the I.T. Act. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of S.D.V. Chandu (supra), we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Explanation 5(2) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

271 D is independent section where 1st limb of section in not applicable by the assessee and whereas second limb of section is applicable in 13 Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal vs. JCIT assessee case in case penalty was initiated on 07.08.2019 and from the end of 1st Sept 2019. In the present case, whereas the penalty was initiated

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

section 275(1), then the relevant dates would be: a) either on or by 31.03.2008, or b) on or by 31.03.2011, whichever is later. Hence, the order of penalty ,as far as addition of Rs. 2,79,000/- and of Rs. 10,05,301/- confirmed by the CIT(A) was concerned, should have been passed, in any case

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied

PRIYANKA KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied

ASHEESH SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under Section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied