SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of 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

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty be imposed, independently of the quantum proceedings. ii. The first and foremost requirement of Section 69 is establishing of fact that the investment is really and conclusively made with the support of direct and cogent material on record. Neither in quantum proceedings nor even in penalty proceedings, any such evidence

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)

69B, Section 69C, or Section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax payable under Section 115BBE, a sum computed at the rate of ten percent of the tax payable under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE The case under consideration pertains to the assessment of an assessee

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in\nrespect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 21[or sub-\nsection (1A)].\n(3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in\nrelation to the penalty referred to in this section.\nExplanation.—For the purposes of this section,—\n(a) \"specified

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. VIJAY KUMAR SAINI, 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

SHRI OM PRAKASH MODI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 196/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Om Prakash Modi, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. B-49, Keshav Path, Suraj Nagar Central Circle-2, (West), Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acfpm 8683 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 01/01/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271Aab Imposed At Rs. 3,75,00,000/-, Arbitrarily, Thus The Order So Passed Deserves To Be Quashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Fact That The Appellant Has Duly Disclosed In The Statements U/S 132(4) & The Mode & Manner Was Also Explained, Further Due Tax Was Also Paid, Therefore, The Penalty Of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- So Levied Deserves To Be Deleted. 2.1 That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty Imposed On Additional Income Of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- Duly Offered

69B cannot be extended and applied automatically in the context of section 271AAB of the Act. Further, the fact that the transaction so found recorded in a document has not been disputed by the Revenue. Given that the assessee is a salaried person who is not required to maintain any books of accounts and there is no mechanism to report

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 (1) (c). In the\ncase(s) Radha Mohan Maheshwari Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 773/JP/2013) Mohd. Sharif Khan\nVs. DCIT (ITA_No. 441/JP/2014) Shankar Lal Khandelwal Vs. DCIT (ITA No.\n878/JP/2013)Murari Lal Mittal (ITA No. 334/JP/2015_order dated 9-11-2016 and\nMridula Agarwal (ITA No. 176/JP/2016) the Hon'ble Bench upheld the same view.\niv.\nV.\nThe

PARAS MAL JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

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

271 (1) (c). In the case(s) Radha Mohan Maheshwari Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 773/JP/2013) Mohd. Sharif Khan Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 441/JP/2014) Shankar Lal Khandelwal Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 878/JP/2013)Murari Lal Mittal (ITA No. 334/JP/2015 order dated 9-11-2016 and Mridula Agarwal (ITA No. 176/JP/2016) the Hon'ble Bench upheld the same view

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 21[or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means

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

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) may not be initiated in respect of such investment, however, he has not issued any show-cause for invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act or has called for any Explanation of the assessee regarding the nature and source of such investment. In fact, the assessment order so passed by the Assessing officer

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) may not be initiated in respect of such investment, however, he has not issued any show-cause for invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act or has called for any Explanation of the assessee regarding the nature and source of such investment. In fact, the assessment order so passed by the Assessing officer

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b)\nand 271F dt. 27.05.2019 was issued at the registered office of the assessee\ncompany (APB-1). Thus the admission of additional evidence u/r 46A of Income\nTax Rules, 1962 is within the prescribed law and same is also rightly confirmed\nby the Id. CIT(A) by accepting the evidence so produced

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) were issued. Thereafter, the ld. AR of the assessee attended the proceedings as per the case were discussed with him. It was stated that the assessee has been engaged in retail business in the name and style of Krishna Radymade& Fancy Store at near Government Hospital, Samod. The assessee furnished trading, profit & loss account

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) were issued. Thereafter, the ld. AR of the assessee attended the proceedings as per the case were discussed with him. It was stated that the assessee has been engaged in retail business in the name and style of Krishna Radymade& Fancy Store at near Government Hospital, Samod. The assessee furnished trading, profit & loss account

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

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

69B and 69C of the Act and the same is held to be in the nature of Business Income of the assessee firm. Having held so, the same was assessable under the head 'business and profession' and as stated above. The excess cash found of Rs. 9,25,000/- are related to the undisclosed income of the firm as mentioned

PRAKASH CHAND SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)JAIPUR, JAIPUR

penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be\nimposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section\n(1).\n(4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the\npenalty referred to in this section.\nExplanation