SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

69A, 698, 69C, or 69D. However, it is essential to consider the broader legal implications of Section 271AAC(1) and its interplay with Section 115BBE 6 Shankar Lal Ludhani Section 115BBE(1) imposes a higher tax rate on income falling under Sections 68 to 69D, ensuring that unexplained income or investments are taxed at a flat rate of 60% (before

HARI NARAIN PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

section 271AAB and 274 of the Act indicates that the imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but directory. Accordingly, we hold that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.”The penalty order u/s 271AAB is an appealable order u/s 246A before

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

section 271AAB and 274 of the Act indicates that the imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but directory. Accordingly, we hold that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.”The penalty order u/s 271AAB is an appealable order u/s 246A before

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

u/s 271(1)(c) treating aforesaid amount as concealed income of\nassessee Tribunal, however, set aside penalty order - Whether it could be said\nthat explanation of assessee for non-inclusion of amount in question in his return\nof income was bona fide Held, yes Whether, therefore, order passed by\nTribunal setting aside penalty proceedings was just and proper – Held

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

u/s 69 would not be necessary. Therefore, the first attempt of the AO should be to find out link of undeclared investment/expenditure with the known head, give opportunity to the assessee to establish nexus and if it is satisfactorily established then first such investment should be considered as undeclared receipts under the particular head. It is observed that there

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

69A GOA-4 Addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- on account o0f investment in Mutual Funds u/s 69. GOA:1-3 (in Penalty appeal u/s 271(1)(c): Invalid Imposition of Penalty of Rs.18,55,307/- u/s 271(1)(c) FACTS: 1. The brieffacts of the case as stated by our client are that the applicant assessee

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

69A GOA-4 Addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- on account o0f investment in Mutual Funds u/s 69. GOA:1-3 (in Penalty appeal u/s 271(1)(c): Invalid Imposition of Penalty of Rs.18,55,307/- u/s 271(1)(c) FACTS: 1. The brieffacts of the case as stated by our client are that the applicant assessee

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

69A without appreciating the facts of the case and the scope of provisions of above section.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeals, the Bench notices that there is delay of 171 days in filing the each appeals by the assessee for which the assessee has filed different applications dated 30-07-2925 for condonation of delay

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

69A without appreciating the facts of the case and the scope of provisions of above section.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeals, the Bench notices that there is delay of 171 days in filing the each appeals by the assessee for which the assessee has filed different applications dated 30-07-2925 for condonation of delay

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

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

u/s 251(2) of I.Tax Act as this finding is amount to enhancement of assessment/tax liability. The provisions of section 251(2) as stood for the assessment years under consideration is as under:­ “2) The Commissioner (Appeals)] shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,SIKANDARA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is in ITA no

Bench: or at the time of hearing.” 5. It is seen that the only grievance raised by the assessee is that PCIT erred in holding the order of the assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Brief facts related to the issue are culled out are that in this case a Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 26.02.2019 at the business premises of the assessee firm M/s Nirankar Tiles and Sanitory 4

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a ) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

u/s 80HHC of the Act. On the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer from investigation he considered the entry for export of 70 lacs as bogus. He denied benefit u/s 80HHC of the Act. Further, he made addition of Rs. 70 lacs in the income u/s 68 of the Act. It was held that once the assessee

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

section 69A of the Act and deserves to be deleted. 3.5 On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that no written submissions had been filed by the assessee and no evidence had been provided to support the ground of appeal and statement of facts which are not backed by any documentary evidence

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Submission: Consequential in nature. 3.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this ground of appeal, it is noted that the AO made an addition of Rs.45,75,900/- u/s 69A

SHUBHAM JAIN,TONK, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - TONK, MAHA DEVALI, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

69A of the Act on account of alleged payment of LIC premium from explained sources without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective and in absence of any incriminating material found seized during the course of search proceedings. Thus, the addition so made is factually and legally incorrect and thus the same deserve to be deleted

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

69A of the Act on account of alleged payment of LIC premium from explained sources without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective and in absence of any incriminating material found seized during the course of search proceedings. Thus, the addition so made is factually and legally incorrect and thus the same deserve to be deleted

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

69A of the Act on account of alleged payment of LIC premium from explained sources without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective and in absence of any incriminating material found seized during the course of search proceedings. Thus, the addition so made is factually and legally incorrect and thus the same deserve to be deleted

BEEKAU BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

25. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal

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

Section 69A of the Act needs to be reproduced for ready reference and convenience. Same reads as under:- “69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained