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

271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of\npenalty proceedings will not warrant/ permit penalty being imposed for the other breach.\nThis is more so, as an Assessee would respond to the ground on which the penalty has been\ninitiated/notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be\nmade only on the ground

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)

246A, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed

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)

246A, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

246A, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or\nthe Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003\ndisposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of\nthe financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition\nof penalty has been initiated, are completed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

246A, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or\nthe Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003\ndisposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of\nthe financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition\nof penalty has been initiated, are completed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

246A, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or\nthe Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003\ndisposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of\nthe financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition\nof penalty has been initiated, are completed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

penalty proceedings were initiated in terms of section 271 or\nsection 273 which were the principal provisions for imposing penalty under\nChapter XXI. Since the initiation of penalty proceedings was linked with\nassessment proceedings and the orders in such assessments were subject to\nappeal, the findings in such proceedings ordinarily became the foundation for\ninitiating proceedings for penalty and remained

SHRI KRISHNA YADAV,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

246A w.e.f. 01.07.2012 that it is discretionary and not mandatory to give relief to the assessee where the authorities have not used their discretion to provide relief to the assessee. It is settled position of law that penalties are not compulsory, not mandatory but are always discretionary considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. In imposition of penalty

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

penalty under section 275 as\noriginally enacted was directly linked with the completion of proceedings in the\ncourse of which the penalty proceedings were initiated in terms of section 271 or\nsection 273 which were the principal provisions for imposing penalty under\nChapter XXI. Since the initiation of penalty proceedings was linked with\nassessment proceedings and the orders in such

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

246A, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or\nthe Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003\ndisposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of\nthe financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition\nof penalty has been initiated, are completed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

246A, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or\nthe Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003\ndisposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of\nthe financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition\nof penalty has been initiated, are completed

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

271(1)(c) of the Income- tax act, 1961 are initiated for concealment of particulars/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” The ld. A/R submitted that in the assessment order the AO has not recorded his satisfaction as to in what manner the provisions of section 271AAB are attracted in the case. The AO has not discussed the default

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

246A w.e.f. 01.07.2012 that it is discretionary and not mandatory to give relief to the assessee where the authorities have not used their 7 Shri Ritesh Agarwal, Jaipur. discretion to provide relief to the assessee. It is settled position of law that penalties are not compulsory, not mandatory but are always discretionary considering the overall facts and circumstances

SHRI RAVI MATHUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

246A w.e.f. 01.07.2012 that it is discretionary and not mandatory to give relief to the assessee where the authorities have not used their discretion to provide relief to the assessee. It is settled position of law that penalties are not compulsory, not mandatory but are always discretionary considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. In imposition of penalty

ANUJ MATHUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

246A w.e.f. 01.07.2012 that it is discretionary and not mandatory to give relief to the assessee where the authorities have not used their discretion to provide relief to the assessee. It is settled position of law that penalties are not compulsory, not mandatory but are always discretionary considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. In imposition of penalty

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

246A, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or\nthe Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003\ndisposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of\nthe financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition\nof penalty has been initiated, are completed

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

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

246A.\nThe Ld. A.O. is, therefore, wrong and has erred in law in holding that assessee is\nliable for penalty u/s 271AAB of the I Tact, 1961.\nII. Submission on merit:\ni) Excess value of Stock of Rs.20,28,903/-:- It is submitted that during the course\nof search in the statement recorded u/s

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

246A, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or\nthe Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003\ndisposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of\nthe financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition\nof penalty has been initiated, are completed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

246A, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or\nthe Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003\ndisposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of\nthe financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition\nof penalty has been initiated, are completed