DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions through the bank as required under ss.269SS and 269T are not related to\nthe assessment proceeding but are independent

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under ss. 269SS and 269T are not related to the assessment proceeding

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions through the bank as required under ss.269SS and 269T are not related to\nthe assessment proceeding but are independent

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

153A of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 for AY 2015-16 was passed on dated 27/04/2022 after prior approval of\nAddl CIT/Joint CIT, Central Range Jaipur. Before the approval, Addl CIT/Joint\nCIT gone thoroughly the draft assessment order, seized records and other\nmaterial relevant to Assessment Order. In assessment order the cash loan is\nclearly mentioned. Therefore, the cause

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions through the bank as required under ss.269SS and 269T are not related to\nthe assessment proceeding but are independent

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions through the bank as required under ss.269SS and 269T are not related to\nthe assessment proceeding but are independent

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions through the bank as required under ss.269SS and 269T are not related to\nthe assessment proceeding but are independent

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions through the bank as required under ss.269SS and 269T are not related to\nthe assessment proceeding but are independent

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions through the bank as required under ss.269SS and 269T are not related to\nthe assessment proceeding but are independent

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions through the bank as required under ss.269SS and 269T are not related to\nthe assessment proceeding but are independent

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

b) of Sub-s. (1) of S.\n275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s.275(1) to make out this distinction very clear.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having\ntransactions through the bank as required under ss.269SS and 269T are not related to\nthe assessment proceeding but are independent

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 132(4) of the IT Act, 1961\n12-21\n7. The Id. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written\nsubmission so filed vehemently argued that there is no undisclosed income\nwithin the meaning of section 271AAB which is either admitted by assessee\nor determined by A.O. in assessment and hence penalty of Rs.22,21,149/-\nimposed

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

271 (1) (c) cannot be imposed”.\nIn view of above facts of the case penalty order is not sustainable in law and\npenalty of Rs.4,04,481/- imposed by Ld. A.O. being wrong and bad in law which\ndeserves to be deleted.\nGround No. (3)\nThat the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act.\nThe bench also noted from the submission of the case law as filed\nthat while relying on the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suresh\nChandra Mittal 119 Taxman 433(SC) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has\nconfirmed the view of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court [ 123 TAXMAN 1052 (MP) ] while

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

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

271(1)(c), penalty is not leviable since the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s.\n139(1) of the Act. This view of our is supported by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Jupiter Distillery [2012] 23 taxmann.com 303 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) and in the case

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

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

271(1)(c), penalty is not leviable\nsince the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s.\n139(1) of the Act. This view of our is supported by the Co-ordinate Benches of the\nTribunal in the case of CIT vs. Jupiter Distillery [2012] 23 taxmann.com 303\n(Ahmedabad - Trib.) and in the case

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)

u/s 271 (1) (c) is imposed on the concealed income for an amount of Rs. 1,34,14,976/-. 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the ld. AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After perusing the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing

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

u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise and thus the penalty levied by the learned AO as well as conformed by the learned CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. Reliance for this proposition is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 162 (Gujarat) HiHIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Kirit Dahyabhai Patel