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)

69,22,670/- vide order dated 30.09.2021 by accepting the additional income voluntarily offered by the assessee for taxation in the revised computation of income. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1A) of the IT Act separately and accordingly issued show cause notices dated 30.09.2021 under section 271 read with section 274 of the IT Act without

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount

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.

271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee himself declared additional income in the ROI filed u/s 153A of the Act and the assessee has duly understood as to what was Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. the purport and import of the notice and furnished his reply before AO on the charge of concealment of income

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.

271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee himself declared additional income in the ROI filed u/s 153A of the Act and the assessee has duly understood as to what was Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. the purport and import of the notice and furnished his reply before AO on the charge of concealment of income

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.

271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee himself declared additional income in the ROI filed u/s 153A of the Act and the assessee has duly understood as to what was Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, Jaipur. the purport and import of the notice and furnished his reply before AO on the charge of concealment of income

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

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

69 and section 69B could have been applied in the context of bringing to tax such investments to tax in the quantum proceedings, though the fact of the matter is that the AO has not even invoked the said deeming provisions in the quantum proceedings. Therefore, even on this account, the deeming fiction cannot be extended to the penalty proceedings

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 271AAA. Thus, the facts and circumstances being quite identical, the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Bench, Delhi deserves to be applied on the facts of present case as well. Since in our case also, the AO has initiated penalty only u/s 271(1)(c) in all the years and has not imposed the penalty u/s 271AAA, the impugned penalties

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)

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

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

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

69, Sukh Sagar, Sardar Patel Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Marg, Dhuleshwar Garden, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABHPM 3498 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) & Shri Isha Kanoongo (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR) lquokbZ dh rkjh

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

69, Sukh Sagar, Sardar Patel Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Marg, Dhuleshwar Garden, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADAPM 3717 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) & Shri Isha Kanoongo (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR) lquokbZ dh rkjh

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

69,30,410/- in which no addition was made. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 07.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 21st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

69,91,302/- already declared in the return filed u/s 139(1). The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 11,18,77,980/- which includes an addition of Rs. 9,000/- on account of short disclosure of commission income and an addition

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)

271- E beyond 30th June 2008, the Additional CIT defeated the very object of Section 275 (1) (c)." Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 39 (Delhi)/[2017] 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) [05-05-2017] held as under- "9. However, this question

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)

271- E beyond 30th June 2008, the Additional CIT defeated the very object of Section 275 (1) (c)." Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. [2017] 82 taxmann.com 39 (Delhi)/[2017] 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) [05-05-2017] held as under- "9. However, this question

SHRI RAM DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 READ WITH SECTION 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. Date : 15-05-2017. To, Name M/s./Shri/Smt. Ram Das Sonkia Address Pitaliyon Ka Chowk, Johari Bazar, Jaipur PAN AJTPS 9679 M Whereas in the course of assessment proceedings for the AY 2015-16 penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 274 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB

SHRI GOPAL DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 READ WITH SECTION 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. Date : 15-05-2017. To, Name M/s/Shri/Smt. Gopal Das Sonkia Address 365, Sonkia Bhawan, SMS Highway, Jaipur. PAN BJQPS 9676 A Whereas in the course of assessment proceedings for the AY 2015-16 penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 274 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB

SHRI SHYAM SUNDER KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 READ WITH SECTION 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. Date : 15-05-2017. To, Name M/s/Shri/Smt. Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Address 1839, Rasta Barah Gangore, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. PAN ADRPK 5862 C Whereas in the course of assessment proceedings for the AY 2015-16 penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 274 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB