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)

271B ought not to have been levied because the assessee admittedly did not maintain any books of account as has been recorded in the assessment order itself. We, therefore, order for the deletion of penalty. 4. As regards the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.7.50 lac, we find that this addition

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

271B ought not to have been levied because the assessee admittedly did not maintain any books of account as has been recorded in the assessment order itself. We, therefore, order for the deletion of penalty. 4. As regards the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.7.5o lac, we find that this addition

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

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 or section 272B

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)

271(1)© : Concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 271A : Failed to keep, maintain, or retain books of accounts, documents etc. as required u/s 44AA. 271B : Failed to get the accounts audited or obtain audit report as required under section 44AB or furnish such report alongwith return under section 139(1) or in response to notice under

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

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

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)

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 or section 272B

SHRI NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 , section 271A, [ section 271AA,] section 271B [, section 271BA ], [ section 271BB,] section 271C, [ section 271CA,] section 271D , section 271E, [ section 271F, [ section 271FA,] [ section 271FB ,] [ section 271G,]] clause (c) or clause (d ) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) 7 Shri Neeraj Purohit vs JCIT , Range-4, Jaipur of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [ section

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

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, sub-section

KAILASH CHAND BANGUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KISHANGARH

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

Section 271B of the Act cannot be invoked when the turnover of the assessee as recorded in the books of account is not exceeding the limit provided U/s 44AB of the Act. Hence, the penalty levied U/s 271B of the Act is deleted. Shri Kailash Chand Bangur vs. ITO 6. In ITA No. 859/JP/2016 the assessee has raised the following

KAILASH CHAND BANGUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KISHANGARH

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

Section 271B of the Act cannot be invoked when the turnover of the assessee as recorded in the books of account is not exceeding the limit provided U/s 44AB of the Act. Hence, the penalty levied U/s 271B of the Act is deleted. Shri Kailash Chand Bangur vs. ITO 6. In ITA No. 859/JP/2016 the assessee has raised the following

SHAHNAZ KHANAM,JHALAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHALAWAR

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

271B ought not to have been levied because the assessee admittedly did not maintain any books of account as has been recorded in the assessment order itself. We, therefore, order for the deletion of penalty. 4. As regards the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.7.5o lac, we find that this addition

SHRI SANJAY PARAKH,JODHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Section 44AB of the IT Act. Accordingly, in the absence of any reasonable and tangible cause for such failure, penalty U/s 271B amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- was levied on the assessee which has since been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Shri Sanjay Parkash Vs. ITO 6. In the penalty order U/s 271

SHRI SANJAY PARAKH,JODHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Section 44AB of the IT Act. Accordingly, in the absence of any reasonable and tangible cause for such failure, penalty U/s 271B amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- was levied on the assessee which has since been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Shri Sanjay Parkash Vs. ITO 6. In the penalty order U/s 271

SHRI SANJAY PARAKH,JODHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Section 44AB of the IT Act. Accordingly, in the absence of any reasonable and tangible cause for such failure, penalty U/s 271B amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- was levied on the assessee which has since been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Shri Sanjay Parkash Vs. ITO 6. In the penalty order 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)

271 D is independent section where 1st limb of section in not applicable by the assessee and whereas second limb of section is applicable in 13 Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal vs. JCIT assessee case in case penalty was initiated on 07.08.2019 and from the end of 1st Sept 2019. In the present case, whereas the penalty was initiated

ANIRUDH BAHETI HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271-B of the Act and imposed the penalty. In view of the discussion above, the penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- imposed under section 271B of the Act is upheld. All the Grounds of appeal nos. 1 to 5 are dismissed.” 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record and also carefully gone through

SMT. ROSHNI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

Bench: Us.

271(1)(c) is hereby confirmed. 9. Regarding levy of penalty U/s 271A of the Act for non-maintenance of books of accounts, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the total receipt/turnover of the assessee business from both M/s Krishna Electronics and M/s Jharkhand Electric & Electronics, amounts to Rs.1,02,68,170/- as the assessee