DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147-203 2019-20 27.04.2022 3,92,77,480 17,02,82,090 13,10,04,612 204-273 2020-21 26.04.2022 6,69,95,750 18,79,04,440 12,09,08,688 274-324 2021-22 26.04.2022 10,49,04,680 65,30,18,040 54,81,13,364 325-405 Aggrieved from the additions made

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result the appeal of the department is dismissed

u/s 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961 can be imposed by Joint CIT or Additional CIT but not at the authority of assessing officer. This provision was inserted with a view that assessing officer is not the competent authority to impose penalty on the appellant, thus, only Joint CIT v/s Additional CIT can impose such penalty. Considering the intention behind

MONIKA CHAKARVARTY,KOTA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, CIRCLE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 412 & 413/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2017-18 Monika Chakarvarty Prop. M/s Vipin Medicals, Nayapura, Kota. cuke Vs. DCIT Circle, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AELPC 3801 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sidharth Ranka (Adv.), Shri Sorabh Harsh (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anup Singh (Ad

147 of the Act. Subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued, the assessee field the return however the return was not signed therefore the return was declared invalid and hence notice u/s 143(2) of the Act could not be issued. The AO in the assessment order observed that there was a cash deposit

MONIKA CHAKARVARTY,KOTA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

147 of the Act. Subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued, the assessee field the return however the return was not signed therefore the return was declared invalid and hence notice u/s 143(2) of the Act could not be issued. The AO in the assessment order observed that there was a cash deposit

RAJKUMAR ASNANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section\n271FB,section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section\n272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A)\nof section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub- section

SHRI DHOLUMAL ALIAS DHOLAN DAS KHATWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 533/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Shri Dholumal Alias Dholan Das Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Khatwani, Ward-3(2), 129, Bani Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Adrpk 6555 C Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 07/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1(A) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Holding The View That The Statutory Notice U/S 147/148 Of The Act Issued In 'Incorrect' Name Is A Valid Notice. The Statutory Notice Issued In Incorrect Name Is Patently An Invalid Notice As Per Provisions Of Law & The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 1(B) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Authorities Below Have Factually & Legally Erred In Turning Down The Various Objections Of The Appellant Regarding Initiation Of The Re-Assessment Proceedings U/S 147/148 Of The Act Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case In Right Perspective & Also Without Addressing The Points At Issue. Thus The Findings Of The Authorities Below In This Regard Are Not Well Reasoned, The Same Deserve To Be Quashed Summarily.

271D of the Act only. By no stretch of imagination, such violation u/s 269SS could be taken as 'Escaped Income' within the meaning of section 147 of the Act as opined by the AO while recording his 'satisfaction' to initiate such re- assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT (A) did not consider this fact while dismissing the appeal. In the back

AMIT JAIN,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment u/s 148 and notices were issued. In response, the assessee submitted the reply. The details of the notices issued and replied by the assessee were as under: Date of notice Under Issued By Response due dates Reply submitted Section on 09.02.2023 ITO, Pune-13(2) 01.03.2023 22.02.2023 148A 29.03.2023 148 ITO, Pune-13(2) 14.04.2023 11.10.2023 142(1) Faceless

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271D and E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271D and E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271D and E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271D and E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271D and E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271D and E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271D and E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271D and E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271D and E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271D and E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

271D and E are initiated is inconsequential. On the other hand, if the assessment order is taken as the initiation of penalty proceedings, such initiation is by an authority who is incompetent and the proceedings thereafter would be proceedings without jurisdiction. If that be so, the initiation of the penalty proceedings isonly with the issuance of the notice issued