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)

34,14,976/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied for concealing the income of Rs.3,94,67,426/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I.T. Act?" 3.2 In ITA No. 196/JPR/2024, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether

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

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

2\nShri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur.\nPER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.\nBy way of present appeal for the above named assessee revenue\ndissatisfied with the finding so recorded in the order of the Learned\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Jaipur [ for short CIT(A) ] dated\n27.12.2023 & 01.01.2024 for the assessment years 2015-16 these appeals\nwere preferred

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

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

2\nShri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur.\nPER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.\nBy way of present appeal for the above named assessee revenue dissatisfied with the finding so recorded in the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Jaipur [ for short CIT(A) ] dated 27.12.2023 & 01.01.2024 for the assessment years 2015-16 these appeals were preferred

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)

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty

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)

34 Shri Ghanshyam Tak, Ajmer. Channai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Shri R. Elangovan (supra) at pages 7 to 10 has held as under :- “ It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 READ WITH SECTION 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. Date : 15-05-2017. To, Name M/s./Shri/Smt. Ram Das Sonkia Address Pitaliyon Ka Chowk, Johari Bazar, Jaipur PAN AJTPS 9679 M Whereas in the course of assessment proceedings for the AY 2015-16 penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 274 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB

SHRI KRISHNA YADAV,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

34 Shri Krishna Yadav vs. DCIT words used in section 271AAB of the Act and the words used in section 158BFA(2) of the Act are identical. Hence, argued that the penalty section 271AAB of the Act penalty is not automatic and it is on the merits of each case. For ready reference, we reproduce hereunder section 158BFA (2

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

34 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. carried on by any class of persons, prescribe, by rules, the books of account and other documents (including inventories, wherever necessary) to be kept and maintained under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the particulars to be contained therein and the form and the manner in which

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

34. In this regard, we refer to the provisions of Section 271AAB which begins with the stipulation that the Assessing officer may direct the assessee and the assessee shall pay the penalty as per clause (a) to 42 M/s Rambhajo’s vs. ACIT (c) so satisfied in sub-section (1) to Section 271AAB. Further, as per sub-section

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

34,025 u/s 271(1)(c) Penalty imposable (100% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 45,555/- Penalty imposable (300% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 1,36,665/- Penalty levied (100% of the tax sought to evaded Rs. 45,555/- In view of the above, a penalty of Rs. 45,555/- is hereby levied u/s 271

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

34,025 u/s 271(1)(c) Penalty imposable (100% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 45,555/- Penalty imposable (300% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 1,36,665/- Penalty levied (100% of the tax sought to evaded Rs. 45,555/- In view of the above, a penalty of Rs. 45,555/- is hereby levied u/s 271

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

34,025 u/s 271(1)(c) Penalty imposable (100% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 45,555/- Penalty imposable (300% of tax sought to evaded) Rs. 1,36,665/- Penalty levied (100% of the tax sought to evaded Rs. 45,555/- In view of the above, a penalty of Rs. 45,555/- is hereby levied u/s 271

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. (2) Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Jaipur has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 34,05,436/- imposed under section

SHRI MUKESH MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

271 and not 271AAB. The Hon’ble High Court 18 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT. after considering the fact that body of the show cause notice and particularly the last line of the notice clearly mentions Section 271AAB of the Act and therefore, the AO will get the benefit of Section 292BB of the I.T. Act. There was no question

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)

u/s. 271AAB of the Act. He also submitted that satisfaction for levy of penalty has to be recorded at the time of initiation of the penalty and not at the time of levying of penalty. The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the ld. AO has not specified the limb under which the penalty can be levied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

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

34. Now, coming back to the second alternate condition (Para 32(2A) supra), it need to be examined whether the same is satisfied in the instant case or not. Only in a scenario where this condition is finally held to be satisfied, the levy of penalty can be held justified by invoking explanation 5A to section 271