SHRI OM PRAKASH MODI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 196/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Om Prakash Modi, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. B-49, Keshav Path, Suraj Nagar Central Circle-2, (West), Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acfpm 8683 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 01/01/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271Aab Imposed At Rs. 3,75,00,000/-, Arbitrarily, Thus The Order So Passed Deserves To Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Fact That The Appellant Has Duly Disclosed In The Statements U/S 132(4) & The Mode & Manner Was Also Explained, Further Due Tax Was Also Paid, Therefore, The Penalty Of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- So Levied Deserves To Be Deleted. 2.1 That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty Imposed On Additional Income Of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- Duly Offered

271 AAB of the Act and penalty levied thereon is liable to be set aside.” 18. It has been contended by the ld AR that the AO completed the assessment by accepting the income declared by the assessee including the income of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- and penalty proceeding u/s 271AAB were initiated. While levying the penalty

MAHESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, and whether it is a fit case to impose the penalty by invoking the said provisions. Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Eilly Lilly & Company reported in 312 ITR 225 has held that the penalty proceedings is not an automatic or mandatory fallout of the addition made during the assessment proceedings

M/S OM PLANTATION,22, PATH NO.6, VIJAY BARI, TEEN DUKAN, SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

234B, 234C and 234D are being charged as per ITNS 150 appended to this order, which forms a part of this order. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 have been initiated separately for concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5 Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

ITO,JAIPUR vs. ABDUL SAMI, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed vide order dated 22/07/2013. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had cash deposits of Rs. 20,52,500/- in saving bank account of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and used credit card for making payments of bills totaling

ABDUL SAMI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed vide order dated 22/07/2013. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had cash deposits of Rs. 20,52,500/- in saving bank account of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and used credit card for making payments of bills totaling

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 separately. 3. The appellant was requested repeatedly to file reply. During the course of appellate proceedings vide notice dated 03/02/2021. 06/02/2023, 23/02/2023 & 06/03/2023. However no submissions were made during the entire appellate proceedings. The appellant during the appellate proceedings did not comply with the notices and hence made

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

234B & 234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so charged being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.’’ 2.1 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR mainly prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has invalidly dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine

CHAND MONAMMAD,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

234B is mandatory and not discretionary as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala in 252 ITR 1 and CIT Vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers in 259 ITR 449. For the purpose of statistics, this Ground of Appeal is hereby dismissed. 7.5 GOA No. 4: Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). This GOA is premature

REKHA SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. PR.CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

234B of the I.T. Act. Thus, according to the ld. Pr. CIT, the above AO’s order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. Pr. CIT noted that the assessee vide para 3 of submission filed on 30.01.2021 has herself stated that surrendered income wrongly considered u/s

M/S. LAXMINATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,CHURU. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing. 5. The Petitioner Prays For Justice & Relief.”

penalty of Rs. 1,05,000/- under the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing. 5. The petitioner prays for justice & relief.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had e-filed

VINOD KUMAR CHUGH,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) read with section

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

234B and 234C of the Act. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not issuing directions for dropping penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The appellant craves leave to add or to amend the foregoing ground of appeal, if it becomes necessary to do so in the interest

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

234B and 234C and penalties under Section 271(1)(C), 271A and 271B. Section 158 BFA provides for levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BG specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except

RAJNI VINOD MALHOTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

234B, u/s 234C & u/s 234D of the Act. Issued penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of Income determined u/s 69A of the Act. Penalty notice u/s 271F r.w.s. 274 issued for non-compliance of the provisions of section

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

234B and 234C and penalties under Section 271(1)(C), 271A and 271B. Section 158 BFA provides for levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BG specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except

JAGDISH PRASAD DHAKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

234B and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the appellant is wrong and bad in law. Kindly delete the same. 8. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any on the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from retail

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

234B and 234C. Since we have quashed Ground No. 1, therefore, this ground being consequential in nature has become infructuous. Thus the appeal of the assessee in ITA No484/JP/2019 is allowed. 6.1 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 485/JP/2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 for adjudication. 7.1 The Ground

URBAN IPROVEMENT TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. 11) The appellant trust craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. ITA NO. 423/JP/2017 (Assessee) : 1) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is perverse, arbitrary