JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

68,69,69A,69B,69C or 69D. 12. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities as regards the addition sustained. As regards the charge of tax u/s. 115BBE he has vehemently argued that provision section 4 being the charging section does not support the contentions of the assessee so raised

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

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

68,69,69A,69B,69C or 69D. 12. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities as regards the addition sustained. As regards the charge of tax u/s. 115BBE he has vehemently argued that provision section 4 being the charging section does not support the contentions of the assessee so raised

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

200/- Exhibit A-11 1,48,64,897/- Unaccounted Sales 3,13,339/- TOTAL 2,19,09,882/- 3,41,539/- 30,944/- At the outset it is submitted that Undisclosed Sales of assessee has been computed by ld. AO in a mechanical manner and are absolutely contrary to the fact on record. As evident from the AO’s observation

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

200/- Exhibit A-11 1,48,64,897/- Unaccounted Sales 3,13,339/- TOTAL 2,19,09,882/- 3,41,539/- 30,944/- At the outset it is submitted that Undisclosed Sales of assessee has been computed by ld. AO in a mechanical manner and are absolutely contrary to the fact on record. As evident from the AO’s observation

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

200/- Exhibit A-11 1,48,64,897/- Unaccounted Sales 3,13,339/- TOTAL 2,19,09,882/- 3,41,539/- 30,944/- At the outset it is submitted that Undisclosed Sales of assessee has been computed by ld. AO in a mechanical manner and are absolutely contrary to the fact on record. As evident from the AO’s observation

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

200/- Exhibit A-11 1,48,64,897/- Unaccounted Sales 3,13,339/- TOTAL 2,19,09,882/- 3,41,539/- 30,944/- At the outset it is submitted that Undisclosed Sales of assessee has been computed by ld. AO in a mechanical manner and are absolutely contrary to the fact on record. As evident from the AO’s observation

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

200/- Exhibit A-11 1,48,64,897/- Unaccounted Sales 3,13,339/- TOTAL 2,19,09,882/- 3,41,539/- 30,944/- At the outset it is submitted that Undisclosed Sales of assessee has been computed by ld. AO in a mechanical manner and are absolutely contrary to the fact on record. As evident from the AO’s observation

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

200/- Exhibit A-11 1,48,64,897/- Unaccounted Sales 3,13,339/- TOTAL 2,19,09,882/- 3,41,539/- 30,944/- At the outset it is submitted that Undisclosed Sales of assessee has been computed by ld. AO in a mechanical manner and are absolutely contrary to the fact on record. As evident from the AO’s observation

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,23,20,24,28,30,31,33,35,36,45,49,50,60,6 5,66,67,75,76,79,80,81,93, the Assessee has given no reply or explanation. ii) For entries numbered 68,69,70,71,72,73,74,85,86,87,88 which pertain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 of the IT Act of Rs. 12,74,04,995/- along with disallowance of commission payment and freight payment total amounting to Rs. 12,83,51,717/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) both on merits of the addition as well as validity of reopening of the assessment

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 115BBE of the Act will have no application so as to treat the income of the assessee as income from other sources. As in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. [1994 (1) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] on identical facts took the view that when cash sales are admitted and income from sales are declared

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68,04,689 and 15,79,200 From the above table, it can be noted that stock was properly recorded in the books of accounts and any excess/ shortage of stock in comparison to physical verification is duly verifiable and explainable. The indirect tax authorities failed to 29 Marie Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT consider the stock that was recorded

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,SIKANDARA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is in ITA no

Bench: or at the time of hearing.” 5. It is seen that the only grievance raised by the assessee is that PCIT erred in holding the order of the assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Brief facts related to the issue are culled out are that in this case a Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 26.02.2019 at the business premises of the assessee firm M/s Nirankar Tiles and Sanitory 4

3) 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). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred

PRAKASH CHAND SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)JAIPUR, JAIPUR

3) 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). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred

LAXMI NARAYAN SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

3) 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). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account