M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

14-15) Where penalty notice issued against assessee was not adverted to any specific limb of section 271(1)(c), thus, Assessing Officer was not clear whether he intended to levy a penalty on assessee for concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, Tribunal was justified in quashing penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated against assessee

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

14-15)\nWhere penalty notice issued against assessee was not adverted to any specific limb of\nsection 271(1)(c), thus, Assessing Officer was not clear whether he intended to levy a\npenalty on assessee for concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars, Tribunal was justified in quashing penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated\nagainst assessee

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

14,75,790/- For that reason, I am satisfied that the assessee has committed default uls 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(t)(c) is imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. (Para 5 Page no-3 of the Penalty order of the AO) 2. The AO is not clear

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

III is answered by\nholding that since the show cause notice dated 12.02.2008 does\nnot indicate whether there was concealment of particulars of\nincome or furnishing of incorrect particulars of such income,\nthe same would vitiate the penalty proceedings.\nSince it has been found that the show cause notice dated\n12.02.2008 that was issued to the Assessee was vague

GHANSHYAM TAK,NAYA GHAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

iii) Existence of ‘undisclosed income’ within the meaning of explanation (c ) to Section 271AAB is a sine qua non for levying such penalty. In case there is no undisclosed income as defined therein, no penalty u/s 271AA(1A) of the Income Tax Act can be levied. While enacting Section 271AAB, the Legislature has consciously used the word ‘may’ in place

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

iii) Existence of ‘undisclosed income’ within the meaning of explanation (c ) to Section 271AAB is a sine qua non for levying such penalty. In case there is no undisclosed income as defined therein, no penalty u/s 271AA(1A) of the Income Tax Act can be levied. While enacting Section 271AAB, the Legislature has consciously used the word ‘may’ in place

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)

iii) served upon him in an improper manner. In other words, once the deeming fiction comes into operation, the assessee is precluded from raising a challenge about the service of a notice, service within time or service in an improper manner. The proviso to section 292BB of the Act, however, carves out an exception to the effect that the section

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)

2,07,96,754/ is hereby made on account of undisclosed commission sales and added to the total income of the assessee for A.Y.2018-19. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961, are being initiated separately. 5. For initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act, no reasons were given by the assessing officer

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice it does not talk anything about the other mandatory conditions of section 271AAB. Certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically is not a correct notice in the eyes

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, 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. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

iii) Radha Mohan Maheshwari v. DCIT — ITA No. 773/JP/2013. iv) Murari Lal Mittal ITA No. 334/JP/2015 order dated 09/11/16 v) MrsMradula Agarwal vs I.T.O. ITA No. 176/JP/2016 Attention is drawn towards the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shevata Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 534/2008 (copy enclosed), 6. The Hon'ble ITAT

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

14. In this regard, we refer to the provisions of Section 271AAB which begins with the stipulation that the Assessing officer may direct the 22 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur assessee and the assessee shall pay the penalty as per clause (a) to (c) so satisfied in sub-section (1) to Section 271AAB. Further, as per sub- section

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

14,144\n24,39,82,885\n2.\nImposition of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of abovementioned acceptance\nand repayment of alleged unsecured loans\n2.1 In the assessment order, though the loans were added in the income of\nthe assessee, considering the same as same as “Unexplained Business receipts\nor unaccounted income\" but still the Id. AO referred the matter

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

14,144\n24,39,82,885\n2.\nImposition of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of abovementioned acceptance\nand repayment of alleged unsecured loans\n2.1\nIn the assessment order, though the loans were added in the income of\nthe assessee, considering the same as same as “Unexplained Business receipts\nor unaccounted income" but still the Id. AO referred the matter

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

14,144\n24,39,82,885\n2.\nImposition of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of abovementioned acceptance\nand repayment of alleged unsecured loans\n2.1 In the assessment order, though the loans were added in the income of\nthe assessee, considering the same as same as “Unexplained Business receipts\nor unaccounted income\" but still the Id. AO referred the matter

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

14,144\n24,39,82,885\n2.\nImposition of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of abovementioned acceptance\nand repayment of alleged unsecured loans\n2.1 In the assessment order, though the loans were added in the income of\nthe assessee, considering the same as same as “Unexplained Business receipts\nor unaccounted income" but still the Id. AO referred the matter

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

14,144\n24,39,82,885\n2.\nImposition of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of abovementioned acceptance\nand repayment of alleged unsecured loans\n2.1 In the assessment order, though the loans were added in the income of\nthe assessee, considering the same as same as \"Unexplained Business receipts\nor unaccounted income\" but still the Id. AO referred the matter

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty be imposed, independently of the quantum proceedings. ii. The first and foremost requirement of Section 69 is establishing of fact that the investment is really and conclusively made with the support of direct and cogent material on record. Neither in quantum proceedings nor even in penalty proceedings, any such evidence

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

iii)\nWhether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has\nerred in ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Kerla High Court in the case of\nGrihalaxmi Vision v Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Kozhikode in\nITA No 83 & 86 of 2014 dated 08.07.2015, wherein it was held that limitation of\npenalty proceedings u/s