VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, 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. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should have been imposed by the A.O. under the circumstances of the present case. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied on the written submissions filed before the Bench and the contents of the same

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

section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues - As\nregards amount received by assessee as advance, Tribunal found that since said\namount had been shown in balance sheet annexed to original return, there was\nno intention on part of assessee to conceal - With regard to disallowance qua\nTDS on account of non-deposit of same with Government, Tribunal

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

section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues - As\nregards amount received by assessee as advance, Tribunal found that since said\namount had been shown in balance sheet annexed to original return, there was\nno intention on part of assessee to conceal - With regard to disallowance qua\nTDS on account of non-deposit of same with Government, Tribunal

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

section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues - As\nregards amount received by assessee as advance, Tribunal found that since said\namount had been shown in balance sheet annexed to original return, there was\nno intention on part of assessee to conceal - With regard to disallowance qua\nTDS on account of non-deposit of same with Government, Tribunal

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

section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues - As\nregards amount received by assessee as advance, Tribunal found that since said\namount had been shown in balance sheet annexed to original return, there was\nno intention on part of assessee to conceal - With regard to disallowance qua\nTDS on account of non-deposit of same with Government, Tribunal

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271(1)(c), on the trading additions and commission payment sustained in the quantum proceedings of Rs. 4,42,953, worked out on estimate basis. 5 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 1.2. During the course of quantum proceedings, before the lower authorities, all the details of the purchases made by the assessee firm from the parties, alleged

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed for deletion of penalty amounting to Rs.2,60,090/-imposed by the AO u/s 271

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

u/s. 148 and completed the assessment on 23.08.2017. Considering the facts of 22 Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal vs. JCIT the case the penalty proceedings initiated is barred by limitations. He further submitted that when the transaction are reflected in the account of both the parties the same are not in violation of provision of section 269SS

J C ANTIQUES AND CRAFTS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are different than those applied for making or confirming the addition. It is, therefore, necessary to re-appreciate and reconsider the matter so as to find out as to whether the addition or disallowance made in the quantum proceedings actually represents the concealment on the part of the assessee as envisaged in section

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

section 143(2) was issued on 18.10.2010 i.e. only after 5 months. Therefore, it cannot be said that revised return was filed voluntarily by assessee. 2.3.2 Further, Assessing Officer in assessment order initiated penalty by specifically mentioning that assessee has concealed income and finally imposed penalty on concealment of income. This shows the clear finding on Assessing Officer's part

RAJASTHAN RAJYA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

251) : "So far as the question of penalty is concerned the items which were not included in the turnover were found incorporated in the appellant's account books. Where certain items which are not included in the turnover are disclosed in the dealer's own account books and the assessing authorities includes these items in the dealer's turnover disallowing

DUBBI GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD,DAUSA vs. ITO WD, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, instead of section 270A of the Act which was applicable from 01.04.2017, hence the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 144/147 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Appellant prays that the very assumption of jurisdiction is contrary to the provisions of law and facts. The proceeding

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

251 and 252 of the Act have also been worded keeping the same spirit, as also\nrule 46A. Section 250 (4) empowers the CIT (A) to make further inquiries on its own or\nto direct the AO to make further inquiry and to report him, which also empower the CIT\n(A) to direct the production of any document

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

251 and 252 of the Act have also been worded keeping the same spirit, as also\nrule 46A. Section 250 (4) empowers the CIT (A) to make further inquiries on its own or\nto direct the AO to make further inquiry and to report him, which also empower the CIT\n(A) to direct the production of any document

M/S TRIMURTY BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD, 2(2), 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. 46/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinoba Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Miss. Shivangi Samdhani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of Assessee Company For The Sole Reason Of The Appeal Having Been Filed With Delay. The Action Of Id. Cit (A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Setting Aside The Order Of Id. Cit (A). 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Coming To The Conclusion That The Appeal Of The 2

penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has submitted that the quantum appeal from which the addition had been made, has already been decided in favour of the assessee by this Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 06/04/2021 passed

MANJU DEVI AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands party allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 271(1) © of the Income Tax Act were initiated for concealment of income of Rs. 10,79,870/- and in the absence of compliance, penalty order was passed there by imposing penalty of Rs. 2,16,240/- for concealment of her income. Although the order of imposition of penalty was challenged before ld. CIT(A) yet the assessee remained

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1) (C) OF THE Income Tax act. Therefore, the decision is not found to be applicable on the facts of the present case. Brief facts of the case are that originally the assessee filed the return of income on 30.9.2009 declaring a loss of Rs.1,13,74,180/- Pursuant to the search and seizure operations u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. SUJEET SINGH CHOUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions and the C

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalincome Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jaipur – 302 005 ...... Appellant Vs.

u/s. 144 of the Act in absence of any details or documents or books of accounts furnished before him. At the appellate stage, the assessee had duly submitted audited final accounts, a copy of tax audit report dated:10.09.2017, entire set of VAT Return, copies of ledgers of various expenses, copies of confirmation of accounts in respect of certain sundry