ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

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

35,315/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of\nthe I.T. Act?\"\n3.4 As is evident from the grounds of appeal that the issue raised in all\nthese bunch of appeal are identical relating to the levy of penalty u/s.\n271(1)(c) and we have heard these cases together with the consent of the\nparties

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

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

35,315/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I.T. Act?" 3.4 As is evident from the grounds of appeal that the issue raised in all these bunch of appeal are identical relating to the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) and we have heard these cases together with the consent of the parties

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

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

35,315/- which was detected during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I.T. Act?\"\n3.4 As is evident from the grounds of appeal that the issue raised in all these bunch of appeal are identical relating to the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) and we have heard these cases together with the consent of the parties and have

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

U/s 271(1)(c) of the\nincome tax Act, 1961 and a penalty notice was issued accordingly..\nYou are hereby allowed further opportunity of being heard and to show cause why\nan order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271(1) of the\nIncome tax Act, 1961. if you do not wish to avail yourself

GHANSHYAM TAK,NAYA GHAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

35 Shri Ghanshyam Tak, Ajmer. 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 271AAB are deeming provisions. In the case of the assessee there is virtually no concealment and no penalty should be levied for a technical default. The assessee furnished return in good faith to purchase peace of mind and with a strong hope that the department would honor the assurance given for not levying penalty. Income declared by the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

section 271(1)(c). However, so far as the penalty levied by the AO in respect of the additions made to the total income of the assessee, this Tribunal in the quantum appeal vide order dated 30th July, 2018 has either deleted the said addition made by the AO or set aside the same to the record

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

section 271(1)(c). However, so far as the penalty levied by the AO in respect of the additions made to the total income of the assessee, this Tribunal in the quantum appeal vide order dated 30th July, 2018 has either deleted the said addition made by the AO or set aside the same to the record

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

section 271(1)(c). However, so far as the penalty levied by the AO in respect of the additions made to the total income of the assessee, this Tribunal in the quantum appeal vide order dated 30th July, 2018 has either deleted the said addition made by the AO or set aside the same to the record

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

35. Firstly, regarding the contention of the ld. AR that in the absence of any specific charge against the assessee in the penalty notice and subsequently in the penalty order, consequent penalty imposed by AO is illegal and bad in law, we have recently examined this issue in case of Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT Smt. Shipra Jain

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

35. Firstly, regarding the contention of the ld. AR that in the absence of any specific charge against the assessee in the penalty notice and subsequently in the penalty order, consequent penalty imposed by AO is illegal and bad in law, we have recently examined this issue in case of Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT Smt. Shipra Jain

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable.” 11. In the above factual matrix, we now refer to the contentions advanced by both the parties. Firstly, we refer to the contentions advanced by the ld CIT DR. During the course of hearing, the ld. CIT DR submitted that first of all, ground challenging the legality of order u/s 271

SHRI RAM DAS MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

35,511 was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) by order—Commissioner did not interfere with order of imposition of penalty—Tribunal confirmed decision of CIT(A) in levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)—Held, during course of hearing assessee tendered copy of notice issued to assessee u/s 271(1)(c) for imposition of penalty, which as per assessee

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

35,511 was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) by order—Commissioner did not interfere with order of imposition of penalty—Tribunal confirmed decision of CIT(A) in levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)—Held, during course of hearing assessee tendered copy of notice issued to assessee u/s 271(1)(c) for imposition of penalty, which as per assessee

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

u/s. 271AAB of the Act. He also submitted that satisfaction for levy of penalty has to be recorded at the time of initiation of the penalty and not at the time of levying of penalty. The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the ld. AO has not specified the limb under which the penalty can be levied

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

35,408/- under sub clause (b) of section 271AAB (1) of I.Tax Act. Thus, the clause of section 271AAB(1) has not been specified in the initiation of penalty in Assessment order as well as in the notices issued u/s 274 of I.Tax Act, the levy of penalty is bad in law and void ab initio. 10. It was submitted

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)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted