ARJUN SINGH,KOTA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

u/s 271(1)c) has undergone a substantial change after the insertion of Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) w.e.f. 01.04.1976. Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) raises a presumption that as and when any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income the same shall be deemed or represent the income in respect of which

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

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

section 270A was not\nmaintainable.\nfor\npurpose\n3.5 In view of the above facts and judicial decisions, the penalty imposed by the AO\nand confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly be cancelled.\n•\nGround-4 & 5_The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty order passed\nby the AO, on deemed income u/s 68 of the Income

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)

penalty notice u/s 271(1)© of the Act, in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. 7. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing.” 5. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 159 days

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)

penalty notice u/s 271(1)© of the Act, in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. 7. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing.” 5. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 159 days

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)

penalty notice u/s 271(1)© of the Act, in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. 7. The appellant craves right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing.” 5. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 159 days

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

69C of the Act, on\naccount of alleged payment of LIC premium from unexplained sources\nwithout appreciating the facts and circumstances the right perspective and in\nabsensce of any incriminating material found and seized during the course of\nsearch proceedings. Thus, the addition so made deserve to be deleted\nsummarily.\n8. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

69C of the Act, on\naccount of alleged payment of LIC premium from unexplained sources\nwithout appreciating the facts and circumstances the right perspective and in\nab-sence of any incriminating material found and seized during the course of\nsearch proceedings. Thus, the addition so made deserve to be deleted\nsummarily.\n8. On the facts and in the circumstances

ANSHUL JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

69C and u/s 69\nrespectively. Assessment was finally completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C\nassessing the income at Rs.8,63,500/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)\nwere also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee\npreferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed the\nappeal

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

69C and u/s 69\nrespectively. Assessment was finally completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C\nassessing the income at Rs.8,63,500/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)\nwere also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee\npreferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed the\nappeal

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

69C and u/s 69\nrespectively. Assessment was finally completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C\nassessing the income at Rs.8,63,500/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)\nwere also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee\npreferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed the\nappeal

ITO, JAIPUR vs. GAJANAN TOWERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

u/s 69 being Unexplained expenditure Rs.3,15,750/- Apart from the above additions/disallowances, there was an addition on account of undisclosed cash receipt of Rs. 46,00,000/- which was declared by the assessee in the revised return filed after the survey proceedings. The AO initiated proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271

RAJESH AGARWAL,VIDHYADHARA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 4(1), ITO JAIPUR

69C of Rs. 1,51,253/- of the Act.\n4.\nAggrieved from the above order of the Assessing Officer,\nassessee preferred an appeal before the Id. CIT(A). The assessee\nhas filed the physical appeal on 25.01.2017 whereas the same\nwas filed online on 17.12.2018. The Id. CIT(A) considered the\nappeal filed as belated and the same was disposed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S CUROSIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particular, of income. [(G)-Addition ofRs. 17.56,66/] 7.8 Total addition as per CBDT's Circular No. 05/2012 dated 01.08.2012 & as per provisions of section 37 of the Act of the Act so discussed supra is as under

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

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

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the Act is hereby initiated for concealed the particulars of income.” It is submitted that the ld.AO passed assessment order u/s 153A after obtaining prior approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Jaipur vide her office letter No. Jt. CIT/Central Range/JPR/2020-21/679 dated

MUKESH KUMAR SARAOGI,CHURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

REKHA SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. PR.CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

69C there should be clearly identifiable investment or asset or expenditure (i.e. in our understanding not connected with business so as to make convenient to invoke aforesaid sections). In case source of investment or asset or expenditure 16 REKHA SHEKHAWAT VS PR. CIT, UDAIPUR is clearly identifiable and has no independent existence of its own where a case arises