DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

u/s 271D/E and also\nheld that the period of limitation reckoned from the date of assessment order.\nThe relevant finding of Hon'ble High Court is reproduced hereunder: -\n19. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Tribunal has held the penalty\norders to be barred by time in terms of section 275(1)(c).\n20. The revenue contends that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

u/s 271D/E and also\nheld that the period of limitation reckoned from the date of assessment order.\nThe relevant finding of Hon'ble High Court is reproduced hereunder: -\n19. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Tribunal has held the penalty\norders to be barred by time in terms of section 275(1)(c).\n20. The revenue contends that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3\nThe AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS\nand 269T of the Act.\n4.\nDouble Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause\nnotice 274 r.w.s 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. 4. Double Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause notice 274 r.w.s 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

u/s 271D/E and also\nheld that the period of limitation reckoned from the date of assessment order. The\nrelevant finding of Hon'ble High Court is reproduced hereunder: -\n19. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Tribunal has held the penalty\norders to be barred by time in terms of section 275(1)(c).\n20. The revenue contends that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. 4. Double Penalty Not Permissible for Same Default as Ld. AO issued show cause notice 274 r.w.s 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the same is hereby quashed. The\nadditional ground of appeal taken by the assessee is therefore, allowed.\n8. Since I have already quashed the penalty on the short ground of limitation, we do not\npropose to adjudicate the other grounds on merits.\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the same is hereby quashed. The\nadditional ground of appeal taken by the assessee is therefore, allowed.\n8. Since I have already quashed the penalty on the short ground of limitation, we do not\npropose to adjudicate the other grounds on merits.\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the same is hereby quashed. The\nadditional ground of appeal taken by the assessee is therefore, allowed.\n8. Since I have already quashed the penalty on the short ground of limitation, we do not\npropose to adjudicate the other grounds on merits.\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the same is hereby quashed. The\nadditional ground of appeal taken by the assessee is therefore, allowed.\n8.\nSince I have already quashed the penalty on the short ground of limitation, we do not\npropose to adjudicate the other grounds on merits.\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the same is hereby quashed. The\nadditional ground of appeal taken by the assessee is therefore, allowed.\n8. Since I have already quashed the penalty on the short ground of limitation, we do not\npropose to adjudicate the other grounds on merits.\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

275 of the\nAct in 271AAB of the Act with clear intention to consider the imposition of penalty\njudicially. Section 274 deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it\ndirects that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has\nbeen heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.\nTherefore, from plain reading

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have been passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.31.03.2019 passed by AO is clearly barred by limitation. 6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of income on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance u/s