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

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

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)

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

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)

unexplained cash credit u/s 68—Transaction was carried out with father of assessee—Provision of s. 269SS was brought under statue to discourage assessee to justify their unaccounted money—However, in case on hand, there was no allegation that assessee had introduced unaccounted money in his business—Thus, keeping in view object of provision of s. 269SS, cash transaction which

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

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

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

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

271\nAAB of the IT Act, 1961 @30% in above said additional income.\n3.\nThat the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of\ngrounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.\n3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search and\nseizure action u/s 132 of the Income

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271AAB.\nAs per the definition of the undisclosed income given in section\n271AAB of the Act. the undisclosed income means any income of the\nspecified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any\nmoney, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or In the\npresent case, the excess stock was found during the course of search\nand

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

unexplained expenditure and there is no addition as such in the order of the assessing officer. Not only that there is no discussion in the order levying the penalty about the undisclosed marriage expenditure and the amount involved in that of the matter in the case of the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that while levying

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

Unexplained investment which assess has introduced in business in the form of bogus profit earned through reversal trade. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 have been also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income.” From perusal of above, it is evident that in entire proceedings, stand of AO has been changing consistently

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

penalties under section 271(1)(b),271(1)(c) and 271F is warranted and is completely illegal and anti-vires the provisions of the law for which it was created. Addition in income u/s section 69A and Penal provisions needs due attention and needs to be exercised with great caution. Hence no such action is tenable in the eyes

BHANWARI DEVI ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

271(1)(c) could not be served properly. Even the address mentioned in the letter for demand is proper and the assessee is residing at such address. This shows that true and fair efforts were not made by the Ld. AO to serve the notice upon the assessee. In real, the assessee was not provided any opportunity to defend himself

KISHAN LAL MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

unexplained money on a/c of u/s 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961. As the assessee has concealed the income he is also liable to penalty u/s 271

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.’’ 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who was serving in Rajasthan Police as a sub-inspector during the year under consideration. The assessee had not filed his return of income u/s

MADAN SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 and be added to the total income of the assessee. For this act, penalty proceedings u/s 271

ROHIT LADIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being\ninitiated for concealment of income.\n(Rs. 37,47,000/-)\n7.\nIn the first appeal, the addition so made by the Ld. AO was sustained by\nthe Ld. CIT (A). Hence this appeal.\nGrounds of Appeal No. 1\nLd.AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case

NITU KHADARIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), NCRB BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

unexplained money u/s 68A. Penalty was also initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. At the outset, it would