KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

unexplained investment in\nplot. As per statement of the partner of this firm Sh. Ashok Bansal recorded u/s\n132(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961, Sh. Ashok Bansal admitted that the firm had\nmade investment in plot out of its undisclosed income. The above statement was\nreaffirmed by reply filed vide letter dated 16.03.2015 during the post search\nproceedings

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

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

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

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

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

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

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

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

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

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

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

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

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

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

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

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

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

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

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

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

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

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

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

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

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

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

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 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)

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

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

unexplained investment in purchase of agricultural land, penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of said addition was to be confirmed which was also confirmed by the jurisdictional Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Appeal No. Grass Field Farms & Resorts (P.) 12 Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 79 taxmann.com

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