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

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

200/- vide order dated 24.12.2018 and penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of\nincome were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) vide show cause notice dated 24.12.2018.\nA further opportunity of being heard was granted vide notice dated 07.07.2015. It would be worthwhile to mention that no further appeal had been filed by the assessee against the assessment order u/s

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)

section 271, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Thus, 1 confirm the penalty levied by the AO of Rs. 26.38,078/-u/s: 271(1)(c)of the Act, being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.’’ 5.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed

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

section 271, be deemed to represent the income\nin respect of which particulars have been concealed. Thus, I confirm the penalty\nlevied by the AO of Rs.72,45,844/- u/s: 27:1(1)(c) of the Act, being 100% of the\ntax sought to be evaded.\"\n\n3.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 274 should satisfy the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended if the show cause notice is vague. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee.” The Hon’ble court also held that initiating penalty proceedings on one limb and find the assessee guilty on another

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. The grounds of appeal taken are as under:- ITA. No. 922/JP/2018 for AY 2009-10 “(1) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is illegal

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

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(1) of the IT Act @ 30% of the undisclosed income

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

200/- which includes the income of Rs. 10,87,91,302/- admitted during search (including income of Rs. 10,69,91,302/- already declared in the return filed u/s 139(1). The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 11,18,77,980/- which

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

271(1)(c) are similar to section 271AAA(2). The scope and meaning has been lucidly explained by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Radha Kishan Goel (2005) 278 ITR 454 (All.), which was followed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the above referred case. In view of the above principles laid

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 153A was not based on any incriminating material found in case of search in his case but was included voluntarily to avoid litigation. The addition for alleged interest on alleged advance was only estimated which was also not based on any incriminating material seized in course of search. 5.3 In support, the ld AR relied on the following judicial

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) and u/s 271AAB it is the AO who is to satisfy himself whether on the additions made, penalty proceedings is required to be initiated or not and also the section under which it is to be initiated. The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) and u/s 271AAB it is the AO who is to satisfy himself whether on the additions made, penalty proceedings is required to be initiated or not and also the section under which it is to be initiated. The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) and u/s 271AAB it is the AO who is to satisfy himself whether on the additions made, penalty proceedings is required to be initiated or not and also the section under which it is to be initiated. The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) and u/s 271AAB it is the AO who is to satisfy himself whether on the additions made, penalty proceedings is required to be initiated or not and also the section under which it is to be initiated. The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) and u/s 271AAB it is the AO who is to satisfy himself whether on the additions made, penalty proceedings is required to be initiated or not and also the section under which it is to be initiated. The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) and u/s 271AAB it is the AO who is to satisfy himself whether on the additions made, penalty proceedings is required to be initiated or not and also the section under which it is to be initiated. The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) and u/s 271AAB it is the AO who is to satisfy himself whether on the additions made, penalty proceedings is required to be initiated or not and also the section under which it is to be initiated. The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) and u/s 271AAB it is the AO who is to satisfy himself whether on the additions made, penalty proceedings is required to be initiated or not and also the section under which it is to be initiated. The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271(1)(c) and u/s 271AAB it is the AO who is to satisfy himself whether on the additions made, penalty proceedings is required to be initiated or not and also the section under which it is to be initiated. The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over