M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

271(1)(c) may kindly be deleted. 4. The petitioner craves the right to add, alter or in any way amend the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing.” The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal and the same is reproduced as under: “1. That the impugned order dated 22.03.2019 passed by the ld. Pr. CIT(Central

SHRI BALVEER RAM,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

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

271 (SC) wherein it was held that "even if circumstances raise a suspicion, suspicion cannot take the place of evidence". 8. We also observed from perusal of the record, that the claim is not disputed but the Section under which claimed deduction is disputed. That the CIT(A) allowed the Claim U/s 54F instead of Section 54. The basic conditions

SHRI BALVEER RAM,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

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

271 (SC) wherein it was held that "even if circumstances raise a suspicion, suspicion cannot take the place of evidence". 8. We also observed from perusal of the record, that the claim is not disputed but the Section under which claimed deduction is disputed. That the CIT(A) allowed the Claim U/s 54F instead of Section 54. The basic conditions

MALTI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmalti Agarwal, B 13B Girdhar Colony, Murlipura Thana Road, Jaipur 302 039 Pan No.: Aampa 1590K ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 4(3), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Dheeraj Borad, Ca Respondent By : Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Jcit Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 2 Malti Agarwal 1. That on the facts and in law, the sustenance by the Ld. CIT (A) of penalty of Rs. 1,82,310/- levied under section 271

BHAGWAN SAHAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

29. This appeal ITA No

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

section 50C of the Act, share of the assessee in the sale consideration came to Rs. 1,03,30,000/-, but the assessee was found to have not filed any return of income. 8. So, the Assessing Officer conducted assessment proceedings and calculated the share of Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee, as regards the above said land

BHAGWAN SAHAY,SANGANER, JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

29. This appeal ITA No

section 50C of the Act, share of the assessee in the sale consideration came to Rs. 1,03,30,000/-, but the assessee was found to have not filed any return of income. 8. So, the Assessing Officer conducted assessment proceedings and calculated the share of Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee, as regards the above said land

SH. NAND LAL,VILLAGE THADA VIA SEETHAL, TEHSIL TIJARA, ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI, ALWAR

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

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

271(1)(b) also initiated for non compliance of notice dated 09.07.2019 & 29.08.2019. As per proviso 3 of section 139(1) every assessee is required to furnished on or before the due date the return in respect of his income or loss in every previous year. It is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the aforesaid income

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

section 69A of the\nAct as assessee didn't comply to the AO's notices. The AO's proposed addition is\non account of following fact as mentioned the draft assessment order.\n\"During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked regarding\nthe source of funds used to purchase the said immovable property and\ndoing the above-mentioned transactions vide

DALU RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 54 & 55/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2009-10 Dalu Ram Meena, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. Plot No. 34, Surya Vihar, Ward 6(5) Jagatpura, Jaipur-302025. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Btupm 8782 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Akshay Shah (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Aashish Nehra (Addl. Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Both Dated 15/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2009-10. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are As Under: Grounds Of Ita 54/Jp/2021 For The A.Y. 2009-10 “1. That The Subject Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Liable To Be Quashed As The Order Is Passed In Haste Manner, Without Taking Into Consideration The Written Submission, Facts, Documents & Evidences As Furnished By Appellant Available On Record. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) & The A.O. Have Failed To Appreciate That:

54F of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A) have violated the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the Appellant on specifically being asked for, therefore, the order should be deleted. 4. That on the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct

DALU RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 54 & 55/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2009-10 Dalu Ram Meena, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. Plot No. 34, Surya Vihar, Ward 6(5) Jagatpura, Jaipur-302025. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Btupm 8782 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Akshay Shah (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Aashish Nehra (Addl. Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Both Dated 15/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2009-10. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are As Under: Grounds Of Ita 54/Jp/2021 For The A.Y. 2009-10 “1. That The Subject Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Liable To Be Quashed As The Order Is Passed In Haste Manner, Without Taking Into Consideration The Written Submission, Facts, Documents & Evidences As Furnished By Appellant Available On Record. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) & The A.O. Have Failed To Appreciate That:

54F of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A) have violated the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the Appellant on specifically being asked for, therefore, the order should be deleted. 4. That on the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

54F of the Act is restricted to the amount of Rs.45,34,469/-. Accordingly the assessment was completed. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the above order of the assessment the assessee has carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised before the ld. CIT(A), the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated