M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

section 275(1), penalty could have been\nimposed on or before 31.03.2018. Further order of Hon'ble ITAT is dt. 10.04.2018\nand therefore penalty could have been imposed within 6 months from the end of\nthe month in which the order of ITAT is received by the Commissioner which\nexpires on 31.10.2018. In the present case, once the order

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)

70,734/- represents any entry in respect of expenses which are found to be false nor has this sum been assessed based on any document which is found to be false, sub-clause (c) & (d) of sub-section (ii) of Section 271AAB of the Act, are also not attracted, in addition to sub-clause (a) of sub-section

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

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

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable.” 11. In the above factual matrix, we now refer to the contentions advanced by both the parties. Firstly, we refer to the contentions advanced by the ld CIT DR. During the course of hearing, the ld. CIT DR submitted that first of all, ground challenging the legality of order u/s 271

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

70,734/- represents any entry in respect of expenses which are found to be false nor has this sum been assessed based on any document which is found to be false, sub-clause (c) & (d) of sub-section (ii) of Section 271AAB of the Act, are also not attracted, in addition to sub-clause (a) of sub- section

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

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

section 271(l)(c) do not exist as such he is not liable to pay penalty. The Hon'ble High Court went on to hold that: 'Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that is to say, concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.... But drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty

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

u/s 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961. 3. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” Ground No. 1 is regarding validity of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the IT Act for want of specifying the default as per clause

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

ANUJ MATHUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

70,10,000/- under section 271AAB of the Act with reference to the surrendered income of Rs. 7,01,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A), who has confirmed the penalty without considering the submission of the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

penalty proceedings\".\n(b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of\nrevision under section 263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed,\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

M/S N N JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, the assessing officer was not justified in imposing the penalty on this basis, the action of the assessing officer is contrary to the provision of law.” Further the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT of Wealth Tax-1 vs Narayana Heights and Towers

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(1)(c) which provides for separate charge of “concealment of particulars of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”, there is a singular charge under section 271AAB i.e, of the existence of undisclosed income for the specified previous year which is found during the course of search in the case of the assessee. We entirely agree with