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

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

ARJUN SINGH,KOTA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

u/s 271(1)c) has undergone a substantial change after the insertion of Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) w.e.f. 01.04.1976. Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) raises a presumption that as and when any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income the same shall be deemed or represent the income in respect of which

RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act are vitiated since it did not specifically state the grounds mentioned in Sec 271(1)( c) of the Act. Smt. Raj Kumari Maheshwari 13. We are relying on the principle laid down by this bench in the case of M/s Vijay Kedia Vs ACIT in ITA No. 1266/JP/2019 order dated 30/07/2021, wherein identical

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

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) read with explanation 5 is clearly attracted in the instant case and the same should be sustained. 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The first issue that arise for consideration is whether explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) is attracted in the instant case which has been

SHRI NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal. Only When The Assessee Enquired About

1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form 21 Shri Nagendra Choudhary, Jaipur. where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural

SHAMBHU KUMAR AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, we confirm the levy of penalty @ 10% on the undisclosed income of Rs

251(2) of I. Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 4,44,570/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 13,33,710/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB(1

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

251(2) of I. Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 90,86,782/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 2,72,60,347/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB(1

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

251(2) of I. Tax Act. Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Kota. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,10,57,747/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 3,31,73,241/- imposed by the AO u/s

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

251(2) of I. Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 91,26,677/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 2,73,80,031/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB(1

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

251(2) of I. Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,09,65,285/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 3,28,95,855/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB(1