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)

u/s 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty be imposed, independently of the quantum proceedings. ii. The first and foremost requirement of Section 69 is establishing of fact that the investment is really and conclusively made with the support of direct and cogent material on record. Neither in quantum proceedings nor even in penalty proceedings, any such evidence

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

271(1)(c)—AO has not even specified in the notice the specific clause of s. 271AAB under which the penalty was sought to be levied—Word 'may' gives a discretion to the AO to levy the penalty, even if the assessee has made the default under the said provision—Impugned penalty was not sustainable. 2. Addition

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act.” We therefore find that even though at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings, the AO was not decisive about the specific charge, however while passing the penalty order, the AO has given a clear and specific finding as to how it is a case of concealment of income and which shows apparent

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

SHRI AESHWARYA JAIN,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1129/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke Shri Aeshwarya Jain The Dcit Vs. 65, Shopping Centre Central Circle Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Abjpj 3114 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms.Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28-06-2019 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Arising From Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 271Aab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Which Is Void Ab Inito Deserves To Be Quashed.

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee ; ) taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI vs. SHRI PRATAP SINGH TANWAR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

money initially belong to the cash creditor. However, in the penalty proceedings, no material is brought on record that the amount received from Bhagirath Singh Shekhawat is the undisclosed income of the assessee. Therefore, on both these amounts, even if addition is restored by Hon’ble ITAT, no penalty is leviable as penalty proceedings are separate and independent proceedings

M/S SILVER AND ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

271(1) are initiated by the assessing authority during the course of the assessment proceeding under Section 143(3), the impugned penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB are fully justified and are initiated in accordance with law. We find that the order of the ITAT cannot sustain, therefore, the same is set aside and the penalty orders under Section 271AAB

SHRI VIVEK SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

Unexplained expenditure on house construction 2,44,63,575/- b) Undisclosed stock 1,91,24,877/- c) Undisclosed jewellery 60,16,265/- d) Undisclosed debtors/advances 5,62,000/- ------------------ Total : 5,01,66,717/- ------------------ It is pertinent to note that the disclosure of additional income in the statement recorded under section 132(4) itself is not sufficient to levy the penalty

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

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

Unexplained expenditure on house construction 2,44,63,575/- b) Undisclosed stock 1,91,24,877/- c) Undisclosed jewellery 60,16,265/- d) Undisclosed debtors/advances 5,62,000/- ------------------ Total : 5,01,66,717/- ------------------ It is pertinent to note that the disclosure of additional income in the statement recorded under section 132(4) itself is not sufficient to levy the penalty

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