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)

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 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

272A FAILURE TO FURNISH RETURNS, COMPLY WITH NOTICES,\nCONCEALMENT OF INCOME, ETC.\n(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings\nunder this Act, is satisfied that any person\n(a) (Omitted)\n(b) Has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or\nsub-section

A.N. SCHOOL SHIKSHA SAMITI,SIKAR vs. JCIT-RANGE (EXEMPTION), 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. 252/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 A.N. School Shiksha Samiti, Cuke J.C.I.T.-Range Vs. Radha Swami Bag, (Exemption) Sikar-303702 Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabaa 6164 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kr Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 06/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 272A(2)(E) Dated 02/11/2018 As Well As Notices Are Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty Of Rs. 2,53,700/- U/S 272A(2)(E) Invoked By The Ld Jcit. The Penalty So Imposed & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Deleted.

section 139(4A) rws 139(1)—An attempt of deliberateness or deceptiveness is associated with the word 'failure'—ln the present case, there was no deliberateness or deceptiveness in not filing the return of income within the prescribed time limit—Assessee was under a bonafide belief that securing recognition u/s 80G would be a pre requisite for filing the return

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

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 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause

SH. PUNEET NARANG,BHARATPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

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

Bench: AO in response to notice issued under section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act however, default was same and, therefore penalty of Rs.10,000 could be imposed for first default made by the appellant in this regard only. As penalty under section 272A(1) (d) could not be imposed for each and every notice issued under section 143 (2), that remained not complied with, on the part of the appellant. The provisions of section 272A (1) (d) are of deterrent in nature and not for earning revenue, therefo

272A(1)(d) was restricted to first default of appellant in not complying with notice under section 143 (2). In this regard I rely upon the decision in the case of Rekha Rani vs DCIT in ita no 6131/ Del/2013 where in it was held as under:- ‘’ Penalty-Non-compliance of notice-Imposition of Penalty- Only issue arose in Assessee

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

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

272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-\nsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or\nclause (b) of sub- section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273,\nno penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee

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

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

272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-\nsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or\nclause (b) of sub- section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273,\nno penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee

JHALAWAR KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BNAK LTD,JHALAWAR vs. ADL/ADIT (I&CI), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

271 days (01.06.2019 to 26.02.2020). Accordingly penalty levied u/s. 271FA of the I.T. Act, 1961 is calculated as under:- For 242 days (01.06.2019 to 28.01.2020) @ 500/- per day Rs.1,21,000/- For 29 days (29.01.2020 to 26.02.2020) @ 1000/- per day Rs. 29,000/- Total Rs. 1,50,000/- In first appeal the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty by observing

MANEESH JOSHI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Shri Maneesh Joshi आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 613/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2018-19 बनाम | The ITO, Vs. Ward-Dausa Dausa Ward No. 24, Jageer (Rural) Bandikui, Baswa Road, Bandikui, Tehsil: Baswa, Dausa-303 313 स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGFPJ 8810N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Ojh

272A(1)(d) of the I.T.Act.1961 is also being initiated.’’ 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order for the reason that the assessee did not offer any explanation before him in spite of affording opportunities to the assessee and thus confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

272A(1)(c) levied by AO is not in accordance with law therefore same is cancelled—Assessee’s appeal of allowed. • Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of ACIT v. Anoop Neema vide its order in ITA 05/Ind/2020 dated 06.01.2022 has held: 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Revenue’s sole

PANKAJ KUMAR MITTAL,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, stands allowed

Penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That the Learned Assessing Officer passed\nthe Assessment Order U/s 147 r.w.s 144without verifying the Facts completed\nthe Assessment with predetermined Mind made the additions & created the\nDemand.\nRelief claimed in appeal.\nThe Appeal of the Appellant may please be accepted. Assessment Order Dated\n02-03-2023 and Order of Commissioner

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

EFY THECHNOLOGIES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 5(4), JPR, JAIPUR

Appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes

Bench: Ld. Cit(A), The Assessment Order Dated

271 AAC of the Act in respect of unexplained income is initiated. As discussed in the body of the Order, the assessee firm has failed to comply with the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act issued and served upon the assessee during the course of E-scrutiny proceedings, penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act is also initiated

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

SUNIL KUMAR NAYAK,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Ld. Ao.

271(1)(c) as well as sec 271AAC of the act. 9. 4. On facts and in circumstances ld.AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the act. 10. 5. Appellant reserves the right to add/alter/ modify/ delete any or all ground of appeal.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

272A(1)(c) levied by AO is not in accordance with law therefore same is cancelled—Assessee’s appeal of allowed • Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of ACIT v. Anoop Neema vide its order in ITA 05/Ind/2020 dated 06.01.2022 has held: 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Revenue’s sole