M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

271(l)(c) when: 'the initiation of the penalty proceeding was for concealment of the particulars of income. But the Tribunal finally held that the assessee would be deemed to have concealed the particulars of income or to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.' 19. Thus it is evident that when the AO is satisfied at the stage

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

68,40,099/-. Therefore, the initiation and imposing of penalty proceedings is wrong, bad in law, invalid and void ab initio. 17. It was submitted that it is a settled law position on the issue that the notice u/s 271(1)(c) should be specific on imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 i.e. concealed particulars

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

68,40,099/-. Therefore, the initiation and imposing of penalty proceedings is wrong, bad in law, invalid and void ab initio. 17. It was submitted that it is a settled law position on the issue that the notice u/s 271(1)(c) should be specific on imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 i.e. concealed particulars

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,040/-. Hence, the pleading on the ground of equity also fails. 5.7 Thus though surrender was during the search in course of statements u/s 132(4), the disclosure u/s 132(4), by itself cannot redeem the appellant from deeming provisions of the explanation 5A to section 271(1)( c) of the Act. Factually speaking the statement

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

68 was one which was surrendered by Assessee itself-\nBoth the authorities below had recorded finding that there was neither any\ndetection nor any information in the possession of Department except for the\namount surrendered by Assessee and in these circumstances it cannot be said\nthat there was any concealment-This is a finding of fact There is no illegality

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

68 was one which was surrendered by Assessee itself-\nBoth the authorities below had recorded finding that there was neither any\ndetection nor any information in the possession of Department except for the\namount surrendered by Assessee and in these circumstances it cannot be said\nthat there was any concealment-This is a finding of fact There is no illegality

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

68 was one which was surrendered by Assessee itself-\nBoth the authorities below had recorded finding that there was neither any\ndetection nor any information in the possession of Department except for the\namount surrendered by Assessee and in these circumstances it cannot be said\nthat there was any concealment-This is a finding of fact There is no illegality

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

68 was one which was surrendered by Assessee itself-\nBoth the authorities below had recorded finding that there was neither any\ndetection nor any information in the possession of Department except for the\namount surrendered by Assessee and in these circumstances it cannot be said\nthat there was any concealment-This is a finding of fact There is no illegality

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

68 was one which was surrendered by Assessee itself-\nBoth the authorities below had recorded finding that there was neither any\ndetection nor any information in the possession of Department except for the\namount surrendered by Assessee and in these circumstances it cannot be said\nthat there was any concealment-This is a finding of fact There is no illegality

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

68,088/- being\ndisallowances out of certain expenses claimed. The assessee firm filed an\nappeal against the said order. Thereafter Ld. A.O. issued a notice u/s 154 dated\n10-7-2017 on the ground that assessee was allowed set off of brought forward\nunabsorbed depreciation of Rs.21,13,949/- of A.Y. 2001-02 & earlier years which\nwas irregular

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHAKUNTLAM COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable and therefore the penalty levied by the AO\nis not as per law. Reliance in this connection is based on the following cases-\nDilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT & Anr.(2007) 291 ITR 519(SC)\nPenalty under s. 271(1)(c) is not automatic. Only in the event the factors\nenumerated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of 9 DCIT Vs Jyoti Agarwal Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA vs. SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. 9 DCIT Vs Rajendra Agarwal Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

B) to\nsection 271(1)(c) of the Act that while computing the total income of an assessee,\nif the assessee fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide then there will be a\ndeemed concealment by the assessee.\n4.6 The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs.M.M.Gujamgadi[2007] 290 ITR\n168 approved the order

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

b. The appellant has failed to substantiate the source of investment in the acquisition of immovable property through valid sale deeds and the explanation may be a mere ploy and cannot be considered as bonafide [Para 5.13 of CIT- (A) order] F. SUBMISSIONS: i. The conditions of levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty be imposed

ZAKI AHMED FAROOQUI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

68 of the Act for both the assessment years, though there is another addition for the assessment year 2007-08 on account of unexplained source of addition to the capital account of Rs.70,000/-. For the assessment year 2005-06, the AO has recorded the satisfaction in the assessment order as under :- “ Penalty proceedings initiated separately. Notice under section

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in\nrespect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 21[or sub-\nsection (1A)].\n(3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in\nrelation to the penalty referred to in this section.\nExplanation.—For the purposes of this section

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

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

68-71 of paper book) Copy of Balance Sheet of Assessment Year 2013-14. (page no. 72 of paper book) Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Kota. Copy of Capital Account of Assessment Year 2013-14 (page no. 73 of paper book Copy of Assessment Order dated 22.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Kota