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

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

12. After considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the\nparties, we are of the view that the argument of the learned counsel for the\nassessee has to prevail as it curried substantial weight. It is to be kept in mind that\nsection 271(1)(c) of the Act is a penal provision and such a provision

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.

12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty levied by the AO for all these years on this

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.

12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty levied by the AO for all these years on this

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.

12-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the levy of penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and raised a ground of validity of initiation of penalty as the AO has not specified the default against which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty levied by the AO for all these years on this

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

1) of the Act. In search cases as well, the legislature has thus envisaged applicability of one or both of these charges. It is settled position now as held by catena of judicial pronouncements that the notice initiating the penalty proceedings should specify the charge against the assessee and even where the charge is uncertain at the time of initiation

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

1) of the Act. In search cases as well, the legislature has thus envisaged applicability of one or both of these charges. It is settled position now as held by catena of judicial pronouncements that the notice initiating the penalty proceedings should specify the charge against the assessee and even where the charge is uncertain at the time of initiation

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment was completed wherein, addition on account of bogus purchase was made – addition not challenged by assessee in order to buy peace of mind and to avoid protracted litigation – AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) vide the assessment order itself – at the end of the Assessment order, Ld. AO mentioned “penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

12 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. (ii) F.No. 286/98/2013-IT (Inv.11) dated 18.12.2014 Admissions of Undisclosed Income under coercion/pressure during Search/Survey Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes Dated- 18th December, 2014 To 1. All Principal Chief Commissioners of Income Tax 2. All Chief Commissioners of Income Tax 3. All Directors General of IncomeTax

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.

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 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 8 In view of the above facts and judicial decisions, the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly be cancelled Submission

RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, it cannot be said to be case of concealment of income and the penalty to this extent stand deleted

12% on Rs. 25 Lakhs money advance) computed for the intervening period of 228 days. Facts of this case are that since the assessee offered the said undisclosed income in the revised return after the search operation i.e. on being cornered by the Department, it was a deliberate act of concealment of income and assessee deemed to have concealed

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh\nreturn and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no\naddition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under\nSection 271(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of\nestablished concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh\nreturn and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no\naddition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under\nSection 271(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of\nestablished concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. 12 Narayana Heights & Tower. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh\nreturn and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no\naddition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under\nSection 271(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of\nestablished concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh\nreturn and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no\naddition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under\nSection 271(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of\nestablished concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh\nreturn and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no\naddition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under\nSection 271(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of\nestablished concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

12 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year. The second condition is not relevant for our purpose since these entries are undisputedly duly recorded in the books of account of the assessee

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

reassessment cannot be declared invalid in the penalty proceedings’’. View taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above judgment was indirectly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when it dismissed an SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra), specifically observing that there was no merits