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)

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by AO CIT(A) ITAT levied by AO and Order Date Order dated confirmed by CIT(A) 15.04.2018 13.04.2018 Appeal No. Appeal No. ITA 544/JPR/14-15 No. 755/JP/2015 Unexplained 85,42,800 85,42,800 85,42,800 Investment

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

Unexplained investment – Scope of section 69 – ITO is not obliged to treat source of investment as income whenever explanation regarding it is not satisfactory – Word “MAY” in section 69 cannot be interpreted to mean “SHALL” – Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 69. This judgement, though is in context of sec. 69, but the ratio decided by hon’ble court will

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

unexplained purchases or sales. There is no real income and no short stock. Without establishing real income, no penalty can be imposed presuming the hypothetical income. Accordingly it was submitted that said alleged profit element on alleged unaccounted sales does not met the definition of undisclosed income given in Section 271AAB. The assessee in his statement to avoid the protracted

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)

u/s 148 of the Act. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act on 24.05.2023 at Rs. 60,04,230/- after making additions of Rs. 52,54,225/- under section 69 and Rs. 7,50,000/- under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained investment and unexplained money Koshal Kishor

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)

u/s 148 of the Act. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act on 24.05.2023 at Rs. 60,04,230/- after making additions of Rs. 52,54,225/- under section 69 and Rs. 7,50,000/- under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained investment and unexplained money Koshal Kishor

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

investment and not made any addition on this account and completed the assessment at the returned income of Rs. 1,48,000/- u/s 143(3)/147 on dt. 06.09.2017. However in the assessment order the ld. AO has not initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271D & 271E nor made any observation that the amount taken in cash and repayment in cash

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAB(1A) with the observations that the amount of investment made by the assessee for purchase of motorcycle in cash i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- is added to his total income treated as unexplained

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

unexplained\ninvestment of the appellant. The appellant stated during the search and seizure\naction that such investment was done by the appellant out of cash payments\nwhich was out of the undisclosed income of the appellant. The appellant and the\nundisclosed income is which was invested by the appellant in the new house. The\ndocuments and transactions were found during

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)

unexplained money, jewellery, valuable article or any other asset. No such asset has been identified by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings. The ld. D/R, could not also bring to our notice any such asset. As the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. D/R have failed to bring on record that the sum of Rs.3

SMT. KRISHNA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI,, ALWAR

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

unexplained investment in agricultural land. On the addition so made, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for concealing

SMT. KRISHNA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

unexplained investment in agricultural land. On the addition so made, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for concealing

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

investment/ expenditure is clearly identifiable and alleged undisclosed assets has no independent existence of its own or there is no separate physical identity of such investment/ expenditure then first was to be taxed is the undisclosed business receipts invested in unidentifiable unaccounted assets and only on failure it should be considered to be taxed u/s 69 on the premises that

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act\nand making addition of such amount to the total income of the appellant\nand also charging this amount to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act, ignoring the\nexplanation offered in this regard during the course of assessment\nproceedings and also without appreciating the facts of the case in the right\nperspective. Thus

ANSHUL JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act\nand making addition of such amount to the total income of the appellant\nand also charging this amount to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act, ignoring the\nexplanation offered in this regard during the course of assessment\nproceedings and also without appreciating the facts of the case in the right\nperspective. Thus

ANKIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act\nand making addition of such amount to the total income of the appellant\nand also charging this amount to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act, ignoring the\nexplanation offered in this regard during the course of assessment\nproceedings and also without appreciating the facts of the case in the right\nperspective. Thus

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained investment\nundisclosed in books of account and non disclosure was only with a\nview to suppress income. [Suraj Bhan Oil (P.) Ltd. v Deputy\nCommissioner of Income-tax [2022] 138 taxmann.com 19 (Madhya\nPradesh)] [SLP against this judgement was dismissed reported at\n[2022] 141 taxmann.com 477 (SC)/(2022) 288 Taxman 635 (SC) (25-\n07-2022)\nFurther not mentioning

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

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

unexplained investment is hereby deleted. Hence, ground no. 1, 2 & 3 are allowed.’’ DCIT (INTL. TAX), JAIPUR VS SHRI DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR 2.2 Apropos grounds of appeal of the Department in ITA No. 704/JPR/2025 for the assessment year 2015-16 [i.e. Penalty appeal u/s 271

DCIT,INT.TAX, JAIPUR vs. DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Department are allowed for statistical purposes

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

unexplained investment is hereby deleted. Hence, ground no. 1, 2 & 3 are allowed.’’ DCIT (INTL. TAX), JAIPUR VS SHRI DEVIDASS ASWANI, JODHPUR 2.2 Apropos grounds of appeal of the Department in ITA No. 704/JPR/2025 for the assessment year 2015-16 [i.e. Penalty appeal u/s 271