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

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

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

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)

5. Submission on grounds of appeal of departmental appeal (ITA No. 1162, 1164 to 1170 and 1174 to 1178/JPR/2025) 5.1 Since, the grounds taken by the department for deleting the penalty u/s 271D as well as 271E of the Act are similar, therefore the same are commonly dealt with. Before submitting the submission on each ground of appeal, firstly

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)

5. Submission on grounds of appeal of departmental appeal (ITA No. 1162, 1164 to 1170 and 1174 to 1178/JPR/2025) 5.1 Since, the grounds taken by the department for deleting the penalty u/s 271D as well as 271E of the Act are similar, therefore the same are commonly dealt with. Before submitting the submission on each ground of appeal, firstly

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

21-28) quashed a penalty-imposed u/s\n271(1)(c) holding that:\n“Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For concealment of\nincome – Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessee filed return for AY 2011-12,\ndeclaring income and capital gains, which was processed under Section 143(1)\nRevenue, suspecting suppression of capital gains, issued a summons

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

21-28) quashed a penalty-imposed u/s\n271(1)(c) holding that:\n“Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For concealment of\nincome – Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessee filed return for AY 2011-12,\ndeclaring income and capital gains, which was processed under Section 143(1)\nRevenue, suspecting suppression of capital gains, issued a summons

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

21-28) quashed a penalty-imposed u/s\n271(1)(c) holding that:\n“Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For concealment of\nincome – Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessee filed return for AY 2011-12,\ndeclaring income and capital gains, which was processed under Section 143(1)\nRevenue, suspecting suppression of capital gains, issued a summons

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

21-28) quashed a penalty-imposed u/s\n271(1)(c) holding that:\n“Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For concealment of\nincome – Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessee filed return for AY 2011-12,\ndeclaring income and capital gains, which was processed under Section 143(1)\nRevenue, suspecting suppression of capital gains, issued a summons

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

21-28) quashed a penalty-imposed u/s\n271(1)(c) holding that:\n“Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For concealment of\nincome – Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessee filed return for AY 2011-12,\ndeclaring income and capital gains, which was processed under Section 143(1)\nRevenue, suspecting suppression of capital gains, issued a summons

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

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

21,149/-\nimposed by the learned AO u/s 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961 after\n(a)\nrejecting submission of the appellant that reason for imposition of penalty\nwas not specified neither in assessment order nor in notice issued for imposition\nof penalty.\n(b) upholding finding recorded by the learned AO that imposition of penalty\nu/s 271AAB is mandatory

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 and not 271AAB. In this respect, the copy of notice has been produced by the ld. A.R. before me. It is seen that the ld. A.R is correct in observing that the section of penalty has not been correctly mentioned by the AO in the caption. However, the AO will get the benefit of section 292BB of the Income

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. During the appeal hearing, the Ld. A.R. vehemently argued that the A.O. has levied the penalty under the impression that the levy of penalty in the case of admission of income u/s 132(4) is mandatory

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)

5. It is important to note that there is failure in the statutory obligation of conveying and validly putting the assessee to notice that with respect to the addition under consideration penalty was sought to be imposed upon him for which default; and, thus, had divested him from putting forth his defence that as to why no such penalty

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Bench in paras 2.4 has held as under :- 2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

21-23) alleging that the assessee’s turnover has exceeded the limit prescribed under Section 44AB. The Ld. A.O also imposed penalty under Section 271A vide order dated 06.01.2022 which is also enclosed as a part of paper book vide Page No.’s 19-20. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before