MR. MANOJ KUMAR GOUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271A and no penalty can be imposed u/s 271B for violation of section 44AB requiring ITA Nos.6696 & 6645/Del/2014 audit of accounts. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Bisauli Tractors (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All). The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court reiterated the similar view in CIT and Anr. Vs. S.K. Gupta

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s 274 read with Section 271(1) of the Act dated 04-03-2014 and the same is reproduced as under:- 4 DHANRAJ SETHIA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR ‘’Penalty Notice Under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income – Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur PAN:ABUPS0573B Date

LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD-4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

271A and no penalty can be imposed u/s 271B for violation of section 44AB requiring ITA Nos.6696 & 6645/Del/2014 audit of accounts. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Bisauli Tractors (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All). The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court reiterated the similar view in CIT and Anr. Vs. S.K. Gupta

UMA MANDAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

271(1)(c), Uma Mandal vs. ITO wherein, the penalty is directly linked to the quantum of addition. The penalty under consideration is U/s 271A which is not directly linked to the addition made in the assessment order. The penalty is leviable irrespective of the addition made and if the assessee was required to maintain books of accounts u/s 44AA

UMA MANDAL ,JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

271(1)(c), Uma Mandal vs. ITO wherein, the penalty is directly linked to the quantum of addition. The penalty under consideration is U/s 271A which is not directly linked to the addition made in the assessment order. The penalty is leviable irrespective of the addition made and if the assessee was required to maintain books of accounts u/s 44AA

FARMAN KHAN,CHAKSU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA

AMIT JAIN,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271A, section 271AA, section 271B , section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, 25[section 271FAA,] section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, 26[section 271GC,]section 271H, section 271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

penalty provision in section 271A Income Tax Act for non maintenance of books of accounts as prescribed u/s 44AA of the Income Tax Act, which are as under: “Failure to keep, maintain or retain books of account, documents, etc. 271A. Without prejudice to the provisions of section 271

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

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

271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section\n271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section\n271FA, section 271FB,section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-\nsection (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-\nsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section

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

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

271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section\n271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section\n271FA, section 271FB,section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-\nsection (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-\nsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section

ANIL SHARMA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

8. In view of the above findings, this appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC upholding the penalty order u/s 271E of the Act, is hereby set aside

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, Feeling Aggrieved By Order Dated 15.10.2024, Passed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. The Matter Pertains To The Assessment Year 2014-15. Vide Impugned Order, Penalty Imposed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) Has Been Upheld.

section 44AA and 44AB therefore penalty proceedings u/s 271A and 271B are being initiated. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated

RAJESH KUMAR BAID,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 501, 494 & 499/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 (u/s 271(1)(c) 271B & 271A of the Act,1961) Shri Rajesh Kumar Baid B-10, Tulsidasji Ki Bagichi Janta Colony, Jaipur 302 004 (Raj) cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 5(2) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7205 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Mo

penalty of Rs.25000/- u/s 271A of the Act.’’ 2.1 During the course of hearing, the Bench noted that at the time of hearing of these appeals by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide his order dated 09-06-2023 and 07- 06-2023 and 9-06-2023 has dismissed the appeals in the matter of Section 271

RAJKUMAR ASNANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section\n271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section\n271FB,section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section\n272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A)\nof section

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)

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 those as provided in Chapter

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

271 AAC. The penalty proceedings are premature and bad in law as the substantive additions are disputed and not sustainable. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234D which are consequential in nature. The interest charges are not sustainable once the additions

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 AAC. The\npenalty proceedings are premature and bad in law as the substantive additions are\ndisputed and not sustainable.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and\nerred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234D which are consequential in nature. The\ninterest charges are not sustainable once the additions

ANIL SHARMA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(3), JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

271A of the Act, passed by the Assessing Officer on 24.02.2022. From the order dated 24.2.2022 it transpires that as regards the quantum proceedings and assessment order dated 22.12.2016, pertaining to the same assessment year i.e. 2014-15, the assessee had gone in appeal. That appeal No. 1/11623/2016-17 was allowed vide order dated 17.07.2019 thereby deleting addition

SMT. UMA MANDAL, 754, LADHON KA MOHALLA, BEHIND MINERVA CINEMA, M.D. ROAD, JAIPUR-302004,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 466/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Uma Mandal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 754, Lodhon Ka Mohalla, Ward 5(4), Behind Minerva Cinema, M.D. Jaipur. Road, Jaipur-302004. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Apspm 2419 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vishal Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 22/02/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Action Of Ld. A.O. In Assessing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 2037281.00 Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Earned Only Commission Income At The Rate Of 0.25 Percent & Treating Percent Of The Deposits In Her Bank Account As Her Income. The Additions Of Pursuance Of Same, Are Prayed To Be Deleted 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Action Of Ld. A.O. Of Initiating Penalty Under Section 271A & 271B Ignoring The Fact

penalty under section 271A & 271B ignoring the fact 2 ITA 466/JP/2019_ Uma Mandal Vs ITO that the commission should be treated as turnover of the assessee and not the deposits in the account. The Ld. Appellate authority is hereby prayed to hold such action as illegal. 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming