DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271(1)© : Concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 271A : Failed to keep, maintain, or retain books of accounts, documents etc. as required u/s 44AA. 271B : Failed to get the accounts audited or obtain audit report as required under section 44AB or furnish such report alongwith return under section 139(1) or in response to notice under

JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

195, the date of payment of the tax, or (b) where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty; Provided that where an application has been made under section 146 for reopening an assessment, the period from the date on which the application is made

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

6 M/s Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later: [Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

195 of the Act in clause 34(a) tax audit report Form 3CD. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT observed that the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271AA of the Act which is 2% of unreported transactions (i.e. 2% of Rs.7,47,84,363/- = Rs.14,95,687/-) but the FAO has failed to initiate and levy such 12 M/S. ENTERNAL HEART

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) was initiated by the Id. AO in order u/s. 143(3). The first appeal of the assessee was dismissed (P.B. pages 15 to 23) whereas the second appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT was partly allowed (P.B. pages 24 to 35) with direction to allow deduction @ 100% under section 10A of Act on enhanced profit

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)

6. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted his detailed written submissions, which are being reproduced herein below :- “WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS GOA:1-2 : Invalid action u/s 147/148 and invalid assessment order GOA-3 : Addition of Rs.52,54,225/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account U/s 69A GOA-4 Addition

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)

6. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted his detailed written submissions, which are being reproduced herein below :- “WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS GOA:1-2 : Invalid action u/s 147/148 and invalid assessment order GOA-3 : Addition of Rs.52,54,225/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account U/s 69A GOA-4 Addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHAKUNTLAM COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

section 271(1)(c), the Id. AO found that the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs. 1,97,04,164/-. For that reason, he hold that the 'Assessee' has committed default u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and, therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed on the furnishing

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

195 (SC)]. 3.5. Legal Provisions and Precedents 1. Applicability of Section 153A: • Section 153A requires a return to be filed in response to a notice issued under the provision. • The revised return filed on 21.11.2019 does not align with the timelines or conditions specified under Section 139(5) and is therefore invalid. • The Hon'ble Madras High Court

M/S EURO JEWELS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

195 Taxman 68 (P&H) i. CIT v. Vijay Kumar Jain (2010) 325 ITR 378 (Chattisgarh) j. Shiv Narain Jamnalal (MP High Court): 7 ITD 795: held that where trading addition has been made by rejecting the books of accounts, no penalty was imposable for such estimated addition. ITA 712/JP/2017_ 4 M/s Euro Jewels Vs ITO Ld. AR pleaded that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

271(1)(c), the penalty. The action is unjustified. illegal or\nexcessive and deserves to be deleted in full.\n\n6.1 The ground is general in nature. The grounds are pre-matture as these are\nagainst mere initiation of penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings are\nindependent proceedings and the appellant is required to make his submissions\nbefore the appropriate authority during

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

penalty of Rs. 4,17,900/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby confirmed.” 4. As the assessee did not receive any favour from the appeal filed before ld. CIT(A), the present appeal filed against the said order of the ld. CIT(A) before this tribunal on the grounds as reiterated in para 2 above

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

271(1)(c) may kindly be deleted. 4. The petitioner craves the right to add, alter or in any way amend the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing.” The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal and the same is reproduced as under: “1. That the impugned order dated 22.03.2019 passed by the ld. Pr. CIT(Central

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 131 on the address of above companies requesting furnishing of books of accounts, details of bank accounts, copies of Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur ITR and other documents, but the same could not be served due to non-existence of the companies on their respective given addresses. From the Database of the department, it is gathered that

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

penalty u/s 7 MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR 271(1)© of the Act separately. Conclusively, the total income is assessed at Rs.6,02,200/- u/s 144 of the Act by the AO. 2.4 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the both the grounds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that "it is well

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that "it is well

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that "it is well