ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

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

penalty. This intention is also supported by the further fact that the ROI filed u/s 153A is deemed to be an ROI filed u/s 139(1) and all the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly. Looking from this angle in absence of any difference in the returned and assessed income. 8. Supporting case laws u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

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

8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section\n271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that\neverything would depend upon the return filed because that is the only document,\nwhere the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such\nparticulars are found

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

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

8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found

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

8)\nWhere Tribunal relying on decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in\ncase of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Grinning Factory 359 ITR 565, allowed appeal of\nassessee holding that notice issued by AO u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) was bad in law, as it did\nnot specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

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

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

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

8) Where Tribunal relying on decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Grinning Factory 359 ITR 565, allowed appeal of assessee holding that notice issued by AO u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

8) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO\nLTD\nHIGH COURT OF MUMBAI\n(2014) 110 DTR 0324 (Bom), (2014) 272 CTR 0336\n(Bom), (2014) 366 ITR 0502\nPenalty u/s 271(1)(c)—Justification of imposition of penalty-\nDeletion of Held, tribunal deleted penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) on\nfindings of fact that merely because assessee raised

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)

u/s 271AAB(1A)(b) of the I.T. Act, however in the show cause notice specific section was not mentioned. Different clauses of Section 271AAB(1A) prescribe different type of defaults and even the penalties are leviable at differing rates. As per the statutory provisions related to levy of penalties under the Income Tax Act, as explained

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 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB of the IT Act and a penalty notice was issued accordingly. You are hereby allowed further opportunity of being heard and to show cause why an order imposing penalty on you should not be made u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself

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.

section u/s 271(1)(c) of the act under which it is initiated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows has dismissed the SLP (73 Taxmann.com 248). 5.8 Further, similar view has been adopted by various courts wherein relief has been granted to the appellant in case the penalty notice u/s 271

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.

section u/s 271(1)(c) of the act under which it is initiated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows has dismissed the SLP (73 Taxmann.com 248). 5.8 Further, similar view has been adopted by various courts wherein relief has been granted to the appellant in case the penalty notice u/s 271

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.

section u/s 271(1)(c) of the act under which it is initiated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows has dismissed the SLP (73 Taxmann.com 248). 5.8 Further, similar view has been adopted by various courts wherein relief has been granted to the appellant in case the penalty notice u/s 271

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately. 7. In the penalty order dated 30.03.2015, the AO has stated that after giving effect to the order of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the assessed loss is finally determined at Rs. 18,43,34,129/- against returned loss of Rs. 23,16,74,228/- and therefore, the reduction

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately. 7. In the penalty order dated 30.03.2015, the AO has stated that after giving effect to the order of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the assessed loss is finally determined at Rs. 18,43,34,129/- against returned loss of Rs. 23,16,74,228/- and therefore, the reduction

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 132(4). Showing of undisclosed income surrendered in the relevant previous years with paying or relevant tax and interest thereon is merely consequential and cannot pull out the appellant from the yoke of the explanation 5A to section 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the penalty levied of Rs. 8

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

8. The next argument that the show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act which is in a printed form does not strike out as to whether the penalty is sought to be levied on the for ”furnishing inaccurate particulars of income “ or concealing particulars of such income”. On this aspect we find that in the show cause notice u/s

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)

u/s 271AAB(1A)(b) of the I.T.Act , however in the show cause notice specific section was not mentioned. Different clauses of Section 271AAB(1A) prescribe different type of defaults and even the penalties are leviable at differing rates. As per the statutory provisions related to levy of penalties under the Income Tax Act, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income but, in penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) Assessing Officer alleged that assessee had concealed its income, orders imposing penalty were invalid and liable to be cancelled. [In favor of assessee] 8

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)

271 read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act without specifying the specific default of section 271AAB(1A) of the I.T.Act, i.e either default of clause (a) or default of clause (b) of the said sub section. Prior to the imposition of penalty another stereotyped show cause notice dated 09/02/2022 was issued by the Assessing Officer simply stating that