KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing Officer ought to have been recorded his satisfaction. However, Ld. AO has failed to do so. The same is in violation of CBDT Circular no. 09/DV/2016 dated 26.04.2016 advising Assessing Officer to make a reference

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271(1)(b) is concerned, from a perusal of the section 273B. it is understood that, notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of section 271, no penalty

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 273B of the Act when the assessee has finally complied with the notice issued by the Assessing Officer the penalty is not imposable as the explanation filed by the assessee was finally found to be correct and accepted in the quantum appeal. Consequently, the penalty levied u/s. 271

AMAR BHARTI,JAIPUR vs. ASSTT.. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

273B of the Act. The Authorities Below however did not dwell upon this contention of the appellant and no finding what-so-ever was given on this point. However it is an un- disputed fact that the alleged default was not an 'intentional' default within the meaning of section 271(1)(b) of the Act; warranting any penalty proceedings u/s

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

SHRI OM PRAKASH MODI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 196/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Om Prakash Modi, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. B-49, Keshav Path, Suraj Nagar Central Circle-2, (West), Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acfpm 8683 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2021 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)-4, Jaipur Dated 01/01/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271Aab Imposed At Rs. 3,75,00,000/-, Arbitrarily, Thus The Order So Passed Deserves To Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Fact That The Appellant Has Duly Disclosed In The Statements U/S 132(4) & The Mode & Manner Was Also Explained, Further Due Tax Was Also Paid, Therefore, The Penalty Of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- So Levied Deserves To Be Deleted. 2.1 That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty Imposed On Additional Income Of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- Duly Offered

271 AAB of the Act and penalty levied thereon is liable to be set aside.” 18. It has been contended by the ld AR that the AO completed the assessment by accepting the income declared by the assessee including the income of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- and penalty proceeding u/s 271AAB were initiated. While levying the penalty

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271 and 273 were the two original penalty provisions, which require the penalty proceedings to be initiated during the course of relevant assessment proceedings or the other relevant proceedings, as the case may be. The penalty proceedings could also be initiated during the appellate proceedings arising out of the relevant assessment proceedings. It is only where the assessment proceedings

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 271, section 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

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

KALPANA JHALA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

section 282 of the Income Tax Act.1961 read with Rule 127 of the - Income Tax Rules, 1961, service of notice through email on the email address at available in return of income or last income tax return is a valid service On going through the penalty order it emerges that the notices have been issued online on ITBA with proper

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

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

271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 and notice u/s\n271(1)(b) of the Act was issued vide notices dated 24.09.2021. Subsequently,\npenalty order was passed vide order dated 15.03.2022 levying penalty of Rs.\n20,000/- holding the appellant in default for non compliance of notices issued\nunder section 142(1) during the course of assessment proceedings

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

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

271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 and notice u/s\n271(1)(b) of the Act was issued vide notices dated 24.09.2021. Subsequently,\npenalty order was passed vide order dated 15.03.2022 levying penalty of Rs.\n20,000/- holding the appellant in default for non compliance of notices issued\nunder section 142(1) during the course of assessment proceedings

MANJEET KAUR,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is subject to section 273B which provides that no penalty shall be imposable if the assessee

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) was initiated by the Id. AO in order u/s. 143(3). The first appeal of the assessee was dismissed (P.B. pages 15 to 23) whereas the second appeal before this Hon'ble ITAT was partly allowed (P.B. pages 24 to 35) with direction to allow deduction @ 100% under section 10A of Act on enhanced profit

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 273B and hence also the penalty imposed may kindly\nbe quashed. Thus due to the negligence of the consultants/counsel if any a poor assessee should\nnot be suffered.\n3. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered and rebutted our these contention or plea rather in very\nsummarily manner has rejected the same and only stated that the reason given

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)

273B of the Income Tax Act and consequently no penalty under section 271B is leviable. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271B is deleted.' 12 Anirudh Baheti HUF vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Jaipur 6. ITAT, JAIPUR, Jurisdictional Tribunal in case of Santosh Kumar v. ITO in ITA No. 1093/JP/2019, A.Y. 2010-11 on dated 3 July, 2020 deleted