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)

21. Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee wonder Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed sunder Section 139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that

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.

5 The Ld.CIT(A) has followed suit. The submission of the assessee before the AO as to why penalty could not be imposed was there in the penalty order itself The Ld. CIT(A) could have well considered it and decided the appeal on ments. particularly when the AO had passed the penalty order ignoring the same

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)

21 Shri Ghanshyam Tak, Ajmer. levy of penalty @30% is leviable against the penalty levied by the AO under clause (b) of Section 271AAB(1A) where the penalty is leviable @ 60% of undisclosed income. It is the submission of the appellant that when the Ld CIT(A) held that the clause under which penalty has been levied by the Assessing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5 para (v) that as per the explanatory note of Finance Bill 2012 the provisions of section 271AAB is mandatory in nature which is also evident from the provisio that "the assessee shall pay the penalty in addition to the tax on the undisclosed income surrendered u/s 132(4) of the Act. The learned AO has stressed more

SHRI MOHAMED MOHTRAM FAROOQUI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

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

u/s 132 and therefore, Explanation 5 applied as much as to section 132A as it does to section 132 of the Act and once reference is made to section 132 then the same is automatically deemed to include reference to section 132A also. We find that similar contention has been advanced in case of ITO vs Nurul Huda G. Aboobkar

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to the extent of Rs. 1,58,23,140/-.” Thus even in the concluding part the AO was not sure about the charge and default of the assessee for which the penalty was levied under section 271

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to the extent of Rs. 1,58,23,140/-.” Thus even in the concluding part the AO was not sure about the charge and default of the assessee for which the penalty was levied under section 271

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to the extent of Rs. 1,58,23,140/-.” Thus even in the concluding part the AO was not sure about the charge and default of the assessee for which the penalty was levied under section 271

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

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

5) vs. Smt. J. Mythili. Finally, the AO has given his conclusive finding at para 7 of his penalty order wherein it has been stated that in view of the above cited and facts and legal position, the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income and accordingly, the penalty

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

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Since common issues are involved, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed off by this consolidated order. Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT 2. For the purpose of present discussions, we take the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 730/JP/2018 for A.Y. 2009-10 as a lead case with

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

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Since common issues are involved, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed off by this consolidated order. Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT 2. For the purpose of present discussions, we take the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 730/JP/2018 for A.Y. 2009-10 as a lead case with

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 274 – seeking to impose penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) – contents of the notice – requirements of. Assessee is a trust and running a school – income of assessee is exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) – Search was conducted in the group case of assessee – notice issued u/s 153C – returned file in response thereto – assessment completed u/s 153A on the returned loss – assessment

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)

271(1)(c ) of the I.T.Act as well as penalties levied u/s 271AAB of the I.T.Act on the income voluntary disclosed in the returns of income. This decision has also been followed by the Honble ITAT in its decision dated 18.02.2020 in IT(SS) A No 260/AHD /2017 in the case of Lajwantiben M Manglani Vs DCIT Central Circle

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

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

5,75,10,387/- by way of issue of notice u/s 271AAB r.w.s 274 of the Act separately. b) Notice u/s 274 r/w section 271AAB dated 16.03.2016:- The ld AO issued notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAB dated 16-03-2016 and 17-08-2016. In both the notices, the clause (a) or (b) or (c) of section 271AAB

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)

5. For initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act, no reasons were given by the assessing officer in the assessment order except mentioning that Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961 are being initiated separately. The Assessing Officer has neither referred to any undisclosed income within the meaning of explanation

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5 of the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Rules 2016 by the order F.No. Pr. CIT(Central)/Tech/2016-17/2347 dated 18.10.2016 and the assessee has also granted immunity from prosecution for the above penalty proceedings. In the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme 2016 sub-section (3) of section 204 which reads as under: - "Every order passed under sub-section (2), determining

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5 of the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Rules 2016 by the order F.No. Pr. CIT(Central)/Tech/2016-17/2347 dated 18.10.2016 and the assessee has also granted immunity from prosecution for the above penalty proceedings. In the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme 2016 sub-section (3) of section 204 which reads as under: - "Every order passed under sub-section (2), determining

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