SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 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)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

reassessment proceedings against the assessee. CIT Vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 231 (Raj) SLP dismissed :(2009) 313 ITR (St.) 27 (SC) Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Lt. Vs. Dy. CIT (2016)287 CTR ( Del.) 621 2. Re- assessment without issue of notice u/s 143(2) :- That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

234 and as per law and settled legal position in this case no interest can be charged u/s 234B and liable to be deleted. 18. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and also relied upon decisions in the case of CIT Vs Uttam Chand Nahar

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

234 and as per law and settled legal position in this case no interest can be charged u/s 234B and liable to be deleted. 18. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and also relied upon decisions in the case of CIT Vs Uttam Chand Nahar

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

reassessment was completed vide order dated\n26.03.2015 by making a further disallowance of Rs.1,38,95,995/- u/s\n40(a)(ia) of the Act (and the total reassessed income of Rs.\n5,97,80,77,790/-). However, this was followed by a notice u/s 263 with\nreference to the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. 147 of the\nAct

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

234 A,B,C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging\nof any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of\nlaw and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.\n4. The appellant prays your honors indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any\nof the grounds of the appeal on or before

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

234 A,B,C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging\nof any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of\nlaw and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.\n4. The appellant prays your honors indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any\nof the grounds of the appeal on or before

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

234 (Kerala) as under: "Section 1534. read with section 132 and 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure-Assessment in case of (Scope of) - Assessment years 2002- 03 to 2006-07 Whether where there was a disclosure made by giving a statement during course of search. Assessing Officer, by virtue of power conferred on him under section

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

234 (Kerala) as under: "Section 1534. read with section 132 and 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure-Assessment in case of (Scope of) - Assessment years 2002- 03 to 2006-07 Whether where there was a disclosure made by giving a statement during course of search. Assessing Officer, by virtue of power conferred on him under section

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

234 (Kerala) as under: "Section 1534. read with section 132 and 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure-Assessment in case of (Scope of) - Assessment years 2002- 03 to 2006-07 Whether where there was a disclosure made by giving a statement during course of search. Assessing Officer, by virtue of power conferred on him under section

SHRI KRISHNA BOTHRA 302, VINAYAK APARTMENT PRITHVIRAJ ROAD, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6 (2), JAIPUR, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 967/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Krishna Bothra, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 302, Vinayak Apartment, Pritiviraj Ward 6(2) Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Arzpb 5089 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri H.M. Singhvi (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/05/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein Sole Effective Ground Of Appeal Has Been Taken & The Same Is Reproduced As Under: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Went Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 9,41,283/- Of Interest U/S 234A(1) Whereas It Should Be Charged As Per Sec. 234A(3) Which Is Bad In Law.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the earlier assessment aforesaid. From the reading of sub sec (3) the interest was rightly charged for 19 months and therefore the increase of interest u/s 234A by way of rectification is bad in law. Further

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

234 (Kerala. • E.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 2015 (Kerala) • Commissioner of Income-Tax-I v. MGF Automobiles Ltd. (2016) 72 taxmann.com 240(SC) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Trichur v Dr. P. Sasikumar (2016) 73 taxmann.com 173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

234 (Kerala. • E.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 2015 (Kerala) • Commissioner of Income-Tax-I v. MGF Automobiles Ltd. (2016) 72 taxmann.com 240(SC) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Trichur v Dr. P. Sasikumar (2016) 73 taxmann.com 173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

234 (Kerala. • E.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 2015 (Kerala) • Commissioner of Income-Tax-I v. MGF Automobiles Ltd. (2016) 72 taxmann.com 240(SC) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Trichur v Dr. P. Sasikumar (2016) 73 taxmann.com 173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

234 (Kerala. • E.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 2015 (Kerala) • Commissioner of Income-Tax-I v. MGF Automobiles Ltd. (2016) 72 taxmann.com 240(SC) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Trichur v Dr. P. Sasikumar (2016) 73 taxmann.com 173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceeding the ld. AO noted that the assessee did not produce the books of accounts in the earlier scrutiny assessment proceeding and therefore based on the observations written in the order the re-assessment was completed by passing an order u/s 143(3)/ 147 on 5 Ram Ratan Jangir vs. ITO 24.12.2018 wherein the total income was assessed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 143(3) read with Section 153A(1)(b) in determining the total income of the Assessee of Rs. 14.5 crores against declared income of Rs. 3.44 crores. The ITAT deleted the additions on the ground that it was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of the search in respect of AYS under consideration

M/S. RAJDHANI CRAFTS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4 JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 of the Act. 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law also ld. A.O. grossly erred in providing copy of the reasons recorded after the lapse of 16 months from the date of application i.e. dated 29/11/2013 and the copy was given on dated 2 ITA 1281/JP/2019 M/s Rajdhani Crafts Vs ACIT 10/03/2015. It is therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

234\nTaxman 771(SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP\nagainst High Court's order, wherein it was held that since assessee himself\nhad stated in sworn statement during search and seizure about his\nundisclosed income tax was to be levied on basis of admission without\nscrutinizing documents. The ld. AO also noted that the statement made

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

u/s 147 is justified.\n1. What is to be seen at the stage of recording the reasons is existence of belief\nbased on faithful appreciation of material which has link to an income escaping\nassessment, but not the established fact of escapement of income by detailed\ninvestigation or legal analysis. In other words, at the point of time of initiating