MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

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

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act being premature at this stage, both the grounds are dismissed. 6. The ground No. 7 raised by the appellant is regarding charging of interest amounting to Rs. 24,49.836/- u/s 234B of the Act. This being consequential in nature, the AO is directed to allow relief

RANJEET SHARMA,RAWATSAR vs. ITO, WARD NOHAR,, HANUMANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 (1) (b) which was against the facts and also against the law. Your honour is requested to order for cancellation of said initiation of penalty and oblize. Keeping in view of the above submission your honour is requested to delete both the additions and oblige 2.3.1 Further, it is noted that the ld. AR of the assessee has filed

MEWAR MIN CHEM PVT. LTD. ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-5, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Cash deposits, appearing in the bank statements as in the body of the Order is deemed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the Total Income of the assessee and charge taxed as per provision of section 115 BBE of the Act. Now Rs.11,74,800/- has been added to your total income

NEERAJ RANGWANI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes as per direction mentioned above

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Cash Deposits. To furnish Stock Register, etc. The assessee vide his reply furnished details however It is seen that the reply filed by the assessee was incomplete and without the relevant evidences as called for. In response to these notices assessee filed his reply dated 11-06- 2019 vide this reply, assessee submitted that he is dealing mainly in Fruit

SMT. BHAWANA NAGORI,BHILWARA. vs. ITO, WARD-5, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing. 5. The Petitioner Prays For Justice & Relief.

cash deposits of Rs. 4,16,300/- (Rs. 1,35,200/- + Rs. 2,09,100/- + Rs. 72,000/-) deposited in the bank account was considered to be concealed income for which the assessee furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. 5. As regards to the cost of construction it was stated by the assessee in the penalty proceedings that

SHRI SARAFRAJ AHMED ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeyshri Sarfaraj Ahmed Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward- Pan: Afypa8123R 1(4), Udaipur, Rajasthan- C/O Shrawan Kumar Gupta, 313001. Advocate, 416, Surya Chamber Radio Market, Nehru Bazar, Jaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent)

cash deposit in the Union Bank of India and The Karnataka Bank Ltd. and on account of interest income as undisclosed. On considering the same as suppressed income as well as undisclosed portion of income, the penal proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated on 03.10.2012 by invoking notice u/s. 274 read with sec. 271A

LOKESH SETHIYA,CHITTORGARH vs. ITO, CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

cash deposits has been explained by the assessee, the amount of Rs. 12,24,265/- is added to the total income of the assessee. As the assessee has intentionally concealed the particulars of income, it is a fit case for initiation of penalty proceeding u/s 271

SHRI ROHIT YADAV,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Rohit Yadav, The Assistant S/O.Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav, V Commissioner Of Income Village – 2Ml, Nathwali, S Tax, Circle Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar – 335001. Pan: Bbspk6028C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(b) for non compliance with the statutory notices are also being initiated.” 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A), Bikaner on 06.04.2015, as seen from the copy of the Form No.35 filed by the assessee. The ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] upheld the addition vide order dated 21.03.2023 passed under section

SEEMA PANDIT,MOUNT AU vs. ITO, WARD, MOUNT ABU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Cit(A) To Rectify The Order. The Cit(A) Has Rejected The Application U/S 154 Vide Order Dated 29.3.2019 & Served The Order On The Assessee On 19.4.2019. After Rejection Of His Application U/S 154, The Assessee Has Immediately Filed This Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal..

cash deposits appearing in her saving bank account but the assessee failed to comply with all these notices. Under these circumstance, the AO was left with no option but to complete the assessment ex-parte within the meaning of sec. 144 of the Act. In the assessment order, the AO noted that the assessee derived income from salary and also

MR.KISHAN LAL SARGARA,CHITTORGARH vs. ITO, WARD-2, CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainishri Kishan Lal Sargara, Vs The Ito, Ward-2, Near Sharma Nursing Chittorgarh Home, Adarsh Colony, Nimbahera, Chittorgarh (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Cjtps7537L

cash sales deposited in the bank, as income from undisclosed sources. The deposits represents the sales proceeds. Hence the addition is unjust, unreasonable and unwarranted. The addition made should be deleted and / or the order passed u/s 143/144 should be set aside as proper opportunities were not given to the assessee. The penalty order imposed U/S 271

MR.RODI LAL BANJARA,CHITTORGARH vs. ITO, WARD-2, CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri N.K. Choudhrymr. Rodi Lal Banjara, Vs The Ito, Ward (2), C/O J.S. Babel & Co., Chittorgarh 328-331, Emerald Tower, Hathipole, Udaipur 313001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaipb8948F

cash sales deposited in the bank, as income form undisclosed sources. The deposit represents the sale proceeds’. Hence, the addition is unjust, unreasonable and unwarranted. The addition made should be deleted and / or the order passed u/s 143 / 144 should be set aside as proper opportunities ware not given to the assessee. the penalty order imposed u/s 271

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAILEELA SYNTHETICS PVT. LD. , BHILWARA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.279/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit- Bhilwara Circle M/S. Saileela Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara 147, New Cloth Market Rajasthan. Pur Road, Bhilwara Vs. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs-1103-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 4.4 The appellant has furnished, in respect of each person following documentary evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the persons from

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

271(1)(C) 9.1 The initiation of penalty is not appealable. The ground of appeal is therefore dismissed as not maintainable. In the result appeal is partly allowed. (Vandana Verma) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-2) Udaipur ITA No. 10181/2018-19 Α.Υ. 2016-17 Date:22:07:2019 Copy to the 1. The Director General of Income Tax (Inv.), Rajasthan