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

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

reassessment, if any, relating to\nany assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to\nin this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section\n132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall\nabate.\" What is clear from this is that Section 153A

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.

B’, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 776, 777 & 778/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11-12 & 12-13. cuke The DCIT Shri Prakash Chand Sharma

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.

B’, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 776, 777 & 778/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11-12 & 12-13. cuke The DCIT Shri Prakash Chand Sharma

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.

B’, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 776, 777 & 778/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11-12 & 12-13. cuke The DCIT Shri Prakash Chand Sharma

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

b. The ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has also in case of Lal Chand Mittal Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 772/JP/2016 order dated 29-12-2011 and various other cases) decided by it held that on the basis of such notice issued by sending printed where only all the ground of section 271 (1) (c) are mentioned or where show cause notice

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

b. The ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has also in case of Lal Chand Mittal Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 772/JP/2016 order dated 29-12-2011 and various other cases) decided by it held that on the basis of such notice issued by sending printed where only all the ground of section 271 (1) (c) are mentioned or where show cause notice

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

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.

271(1)(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

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 142], or …………. ………… he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty- 1.64[**] 2. In the cases referred to in clause (b), 66 [in addition to tax, if any, payable] by him, 67 [a sum of ten thousand rupees] for each such failure:] 3……” A bare perusal of above, makes it amply clear for levy of penalty

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

B) to section 271 of the Act should be clear and without any ambiguity. (o) If the Assessing Officer has not recorded any satisfaction or has not issued any direction to initiate penalty proceedings, in appeal, if the appellate authority records satisfaction, then the penalty proceedings have to be initiated by the appellate authority and not the assessing authority

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

reassessment proceedings. The provision of Section 153A, 153B and 153C are a complete code for assessment wherein search and seizure has been initiated after May 31, 2003. Thus, there is complete detachment of assessment proceedings under section 143 or 147 from search proceeding under section 153A of the Act. For the purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271 (1

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

b). (2) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 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

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

B). 14 DHANRAJ SETHIA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR (h) The said deeming provisions are not applicable to the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and the Commissioner. (i) The imposition of penalty is not automatic. (j) Imposition of penalty even if the tax liability is admitted is not automatic. (k) Even if the assessee has not challenged