DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

271(1)(C) of the IT Act. In this relevant case the assessee had voluntarily surrendered his claim of deduction so in this case no penalty should be imposed because there was no addition on record and the voluntarily surrender never attracts penalty provision as held in various judgments penalty is unjustified in this case wherein assessee has surrender

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blechainaram V/P Doli Tehsil Luni, Jodhpur - 342001. Pan No Biкpr9270C Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Ito, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur. Shri Anil Bhansali, Advocate. Shri Karni Dan, Addl. Cit (Sr. D.R.) 21.05.2025. 26.06.2025. 17

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the AO to pass de novo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. In support, he placed reliance on Judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of "Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India", [2022] 134 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi) where it was observed that

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR. vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the AO to pass de novo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. In support, he placed reliance on Judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of "Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India", [2022] 134 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi) where it was observed that

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the AO to pass de novo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. In support, he placed reliance on Judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of "Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India", [2022] 134 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi) where it was observed that

JAISALMER CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,JAISALMER vs. ITO WARD-1, BARMER

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

reassessment proceedings, is patently incorrect and substantially higher. Thus the penalty amount was not worked out as per law. The appellant condemned unheard on this issue. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. The assessee has also raised the following additional legal

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reassessment or reopening of the assessment. The\ncase is squarely covered by the above judgment. Therefore, to complete\nassessment on the basis of illegal notice is illegal and void.\nOn the similar principals, the order of the Karnataka High Court in the case of\nManjunath Cotton Corp and M/s. SSSA Emerald Meadows, on the issue of\npenalty u/s 271