SHRI RAM DAS MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 almost accepted the income disclosed by the assessee. However the Learned Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per para 5 of the assessment order scanned below: - The perusal of the aforesaid paras of the assessment order disclosed that the Learned Assessing Officer has initiated

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 almost accepted the income disclosed by the assessee. However the Ld. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per para 5 of the assessment order scanned below: - ITA 419/JP/2018_ 8 Shri Ashok Kr. Maheshwari Vs Pr.CIT The perusal of the aforesaid paras of the assessment

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

153B of the IT Act on 07.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 9,69,30,410/- in which no addition was made. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 07.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 21st June

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

153B of the IT Act on 19.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 11,98,99,765/- which includes an addition of Rs. 9,000/- on account of short disclosure of commission income and an addition of Rs. 39,115/- on account of mismatch in the share trading turnover. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,52,42,549/- which includes addition of Rs. 43,639/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,42,490/- on account of disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,30,65,828/- which includes addition of Rs. 42,379/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,23,519/- on account of disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

153B of the IT Act at the total income of Rs. 12,24,18,200/-. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 12.01.2018. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 21st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 11,18,77,980/- which includes an addition of Rs. 9,000/- on account of short disclosure of commission income and an addition of Rs. 41,778/- on account of mismatch in the share trading turnover. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under

SHRI RAM DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” Ground No. 1 is regarding validity of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the IT Act for want of specifying the default as per clause

SHRI GOPAL DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” Ground No. 1 is regarding validity of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the IT Act for want of specifying the default as per clause

SHRI SHYAM SUNDER KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” Ground No. 1 is regarding validity of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the IT Act for want of specifying the default as per clause

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

153B(1)(b) of the Act on 28.03.2016 at a total income of Rs. 12,96,93,610/- by making an addition of Rs. 35,42,067/- on account of 3 Shri Ritesh Agarwal, Jaipur. disallowance of interest as part of the cost of the assets while computing long term capital gain. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAB

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.”

153B (1)(b) on 28th December, 2016 accepting the returned income of the assessee. Subsequently, the AO initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 28th December, 2016 and further vide notice dated 3rd March, 2017. The assessee contested the notice issued by the AO for levy of penalty

RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, it cannot be said to be case of concealment of income and the penalty to this extent stand deleted

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld CIT (A) against the said penalty order and filed written submission reproduced in appeal order of ld CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) relying on provisions of section 153A, Expl. 5A to section 271(1)(c) and on judgment of Delhi

ANUJ MATHUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

153B(1) of the IT Act. Subsequently, the AO imposed the penalty of Rs. 70,10,000/- under section 271AAB of the Act with reference to the surrendered income of Rs. 7,01,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A), who has confirmed the penalty without considering the submission

SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

153B(1)(b) at an assessed income of Rs 77,55,460/-. The Assessing Officer separately initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB in respect of undisclosed income of Rs 49,51,885/- by way of issue of notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAB of the Act dated 28.12.2016 which was duly served on the assessee. 2 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur

SHRI AESHWARYA JAIN,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1129/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke Shri Aeshwarya Jain The Dcit Vs. 65, Shopping Centre Central Circle Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Abjpj 3114 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms.Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28-06-2019 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Arising From Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 271Aab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Which Is Void Ab Inito Deserves To Be Quashed.

153B(1)(b) of the of the Act at the returned income. However, the AO held that income of Rs. 10.00 lacs is assessable u/s 69 of the Act and therefore, the same is taxable @ 30% as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act and levied

SHRI PADAM CHAND PUNGLIYA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act was completed on 30th March, 2016 accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by issuing show cause notices dated 30th March, 2016 and 16.08.2016. The assessee raised objection against the levy of penalty by filing the reply and written submissions and mainly contended