SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,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. 1,08,84,208/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 3,26,52,624/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

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. 91,50,841/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 2,74,52,522/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB

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. 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

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

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2,43,500/- for AY 2007-08, AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 respectively. Accepting the income declared in the returns of income filed u/s 153A, the AO completed the assessments without making any addition, whatsoever. No appeal was preferred by the assessee against the assessment so made. On the other hand, the AO initiated penalty

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

2) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred

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.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If it has claimed any exemption after disclosing the relevant basic facts and under ignorance of the provisions of the Act of 1961, and not offered that amount for tax, in such cases, penalty should not be imposed. In such cases rather it is the duty of the Assessing Officer

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

u/s 143(2) was issued asking the assessee regarding share\napplication money. Later, the assessee made a surrender w.r.t 12 share\napplicants. Yet however, it was not held as a case of prior detection. Present\ncase is on much stronger footing because here even prior to issue of 148 notice\nitself, the assessee made the disclosure/voluntarily admitted inadvertent wrong\nclaim

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

u/s 143(2) was issued asking the assessee regarding share\napplication money. Later, the assessee made a surrender w.r.t 12 share\napplicants. Yet however, it was not held as a case of prior detection. Present\ncase is on much stronger footing because here even prior to issue of 148 notice\nitself, the assessee made the disclosure/voluntarily admitted inadvertent wrong\nclaim

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

u/s 143(2) was issued asking the assessee regarding share\napplication money. Later, the assessee made a surrender w.r.t 12 share\napplicants. Yet however, it was not held as a case of prior detection. Present\ncase is on much stronger footing because here even prior to issue of 148 notice\nitself, the assessee made the disclosure/voluntarily admitted inadvertent wrong\nclaim

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

u/s 143(2) was issued asking the assessee regarding share\napplication money. Later, the assessee made a surrender w.r.t 12 share\napplicants. Yet however, it was not held as a case of prior detection. Present\ncase is on much stronger footing because here even prior to issue of 148 notice\nitself, the assessee made the disclosure/voluntarily admitted inadvertent wrong\nclaim

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

u/s 143(2) was issued asking the assessee regarding share\napplication money. Later, the assessee made a surrender w.r.t 12 share\napplicants. Yet however, it was not held as a case of prior detection. Present\ncase is on much stronger footing because here even prior to issue of 148 notice\nitself, the assessee made the disclosure/voluntarily admitted inadvertent wrong\nclaim

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In case of Smt. Shipra Jain, he confirmed the levy of penalty on addition of Rs.10 lacs however without giving effect to the order of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings. In case of Sh. Sapan Jain, he confirmed the levy of penalty on the addition which was sustained by the Tribunal but took

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

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 justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

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

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)

2 PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LD. AO OF RS.1,37,000 U/S 271(1)(C). [Submissions apropos Ground No. 1 have been made subsequently] 1. SUBMISSION 1.1. Ld. AO passed the penalty order, imposing penalty of Rs.1,37,000, u/s 271(1)(c), on the trading additions and commission payment sustained in the quantum proceedings

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