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)

2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. Provided that any penalty under sub-section (1), on or alter the 1st day of April, 2025, shall be imposed by the Assessing Officer. *275 Bar of limitation for imposing penalties (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed

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)

2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. Provided that any penalty under sub-section (1), on or alter the 1st day of April, 2025, shall be imposed by the Assessing Officer. *275 Bar of limitation for imposing penalties (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) 35 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. that the income was surrendered on the basis of some documents on which the name of some persons and some amount is mentioned. The Learned Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry regarding those documents whether the person the name of which mentioned is an existing person or the amount mentioned

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

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount

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

2- 4 Jaipur (ITA No. 1033/JP/2016) has cancelled the penalty by holding that: - “3.2 We have heard the rival contention, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. For the sake of clarity the relevant contents of the Assessment order are reproduced as under: -“ “Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is separately as assessee

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

2- 4 Jaipur (ITA No. 1033/JP/2016) has cancelled the penalty by holding that: - “3.2 We have heard the rival contention, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. For the sake of clarity the relevant contents of the Assessment order are reproduced as under: -“ “Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is separately as assessee

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2 pr 5, it is stated that: “x x x x The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are separately initiated on this issue.” Further, in the impugned penalty orders for all the years again the position is not better than what was in the assessment orders in as much as on the last page of all the penalty orders

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) was already there on record and when Tribunal was to examine applicability of this Court decision in case of M/s Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory and law laid down, it was case where contention ought to have been considered and examined—As observed herein above, decision in case of M/s Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory would apply

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) was already there on record and when Tribunal was to examine applicability of this Court decision in case of M/s Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory and law laid down, it was case where contention ought to have been considered and examined—As observed herein above, decision in case of M/s Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory would apply

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)

section 271AAB is not satisfied. Apart from the fact that these transactions were duly recorded in the books of account, the assessee has also produced relevant documents, the details of which are as under :— (A) IN RELATION TO SHARES PURCHASE : Summary of shares purchased during the FY 2012-13 (page No. 87 of paper book) Copy of share allotment Advice

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

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

47. Looking at the matter from another perspective, as we have noted above, basis the documents found and seized during the course of search, read along with the statements so recorded u/s 132(4), DCIT, Jaipur vs. Sh. Kamal Sethia, Jaipur what has been found is the expenditure towards capital cost/purchase of land relating to various construction projects being executed

SHRI NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal. Only When The Assessee Enquired About

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

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)

PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) A. SUBMISSIONS BEFORE HON’BLE ITAT DURING QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS 1. Elaborate submissions during quantum proceedings were made before Hon’ble Bench. The same may please be considered in correct perspective [PB 142-158] B. FINDING OF HON’BLE ITAT DURING QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS: 9 SMT. JAMNA DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WRD 7(2), JAIPUR

NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE JHUNJHUNU, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)© of the Act are applicable in this case and it is a fit case to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act. I, therefore, proceed to levy of penalty of Rs.16,64,000/- which is calculated as under:- Computation of Penalty A. Total assessed income as per order u/s 143(3) Rs.5

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

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

penalty of Rs. 8,27,866/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act,1961. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.07.2010 for A.Y. 2010-11 declaring total income of Rs. 1,22,06,480/-. Thereafter search

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

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount

SHRI VIVEK SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

47 of the judgement in the case of Commissioner\nof Income-tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com\n250 (Karnataka)/[2013] 218 Taxman 423 (Karnataka)/[2013] 359 ITR 565\n(Karnataka)/[2013] 263 CTR 153 (Karnataka) [13-12-2012])\nThe object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanations\nindicates that the said section