VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

penalty U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act could not be imposed. In this regard, we rely upon the decision of Coordinate Bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of Balram Kumar Mahendra Vs ITO (2011) 012 ITR (Trib) 0426 wherein it was held as under: “that the AO issued notice under section 143(2

SANGRAM RAM,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD -1(1), BIKANER

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act that the appeal of the assessee against the addition has been accepted and requested to drop the penalty proceeding and it may be treated as compliance of notice issue previously. 7.2 We are of the view that the AO had levied the penalty at Rs. 10,000/- for non compliance

SANGRAM RAM,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD -1(1), BIKANER

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act that the appeal of the assessee against the addition has been accepted and requested to drop the penalty proceeding and it may be treated as compliance of notice issue previously. 7.2 We are of the view that the AO had levied the penalty at Rs. 10,000/- for non compliance

MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

2. The six month expires from the date 31.10.2017 on 30.04.2018. 3. Therefore, order u/s 271E should have been passed on or before 30.04.2018 as per this clause. Conclusion: Since, in view of the above, the later period expires on 30.04.2018. Therefore, the penalty proceeding must have been completed till 30.04.2018. iv. Since in the present case penalty order u/s

M/S. BANARSI MARBLE STONE PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 271(l)(c) of the Act for ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of income’ and thereafter issued the notice u/s 274 without specifying the limb of the penalty imposable and finally imposed penalty for furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore the question emerges as to whether penalty is sustainable, under the facts wherein the notice is not clear and/or issued without

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs 10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b)ofthe Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the submission in right perspective and judicious

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs 10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b)ofthe Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the submission in right perspective and judicious

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs 10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b)ofthe Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the submission in right perspective and judicious

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs 10,000/- u/s 271(l)(b)ofthe Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the submission in right perspective and judicious

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.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for 'furnished inaccurate particulars of income' and thereafter issued the notice u/s 274 without specifying the limb of the penalty impossible and finally imposed penalty for furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore the question emerges as to whether penalty is sustainable, under the facts wherein the notice is not clear and/or issued without

VIKRAM ANJANA,PRATAPGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainishri Vikram Anjana, Vs The Acit, Vill - Kesunda, Circle-Chittorgarh Tehsil Chhotisadri, Pratapgarh (Raj.) 312604

2. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the sustenance of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee was engaged in money lending business, filed the return of income declaring an income

SHRINATH PRODUCTS,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S Shrinath Products Vs. Ito. Ward 1(1), A.M.Mehta & Co, Udaipur, 6-B, Bapu Bazar, Rajasthan. Udaipur.-313001, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfs9840Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair. Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A)-1,Udaipur Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax (Act), 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

section 144 of the Act and passed the order u/s 144 r.w. 147 of the Act. The Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. We heard the Ld. DR submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271

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.”

section 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

UMMAID MAL SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

Accordingly, legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. Ummaid Mal Singhvi, Acit, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Vs Central Circle-2, 106 Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th Jodhpur B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Pan: Abpps7429D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur Dated 30Th September, 2019 For Assessment Year 2008-09 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aaa Of The Income Tax Act Passed By Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jodhpur. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Ummaid Mal Singhvi

2. In this case, there was a search under section 132 of the Act on 25.03.2008. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAA for 4 Ummaid Mal Singhvi concealing the particulars of income. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271AAA after

CHAMPA LAL MEHTA ,SANCHORE vs. ITO WARD-2, JALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied.\nThe disallowance of purchases on adhoc/estimated basis does not\ntantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars ofincome under the\nprovisions ofSection 271(1) (c) ofthe Act. The A.O. has not doubted the\nsales and made disallowance of bogus purchases, and we rely on the\nratio of the Honorable Jurisdictional High Court

SHRI AMAR SINGH JAIN ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for 'furnished inaccurate particulars of income' and thereafter issued the notice u/s 274 without specifying the limb of the penalty impossible and finally imposed penalty for furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore the question emerges as to whether penalty is sustainable, under the facts wherein the notice is not clear and/or issued without

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCITL CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

2,48,131/- for 0 0 0 additional assessment depreciation claimed in revised return Assessed income u/s 147 6573180 6993451 7496690 8925790 10337690 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied. 556199 432600 527620 894515 1201374 5.2 We note that the additional income was offered in the return filed under section

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

2,48,131/- for 0 0 0 additional assessment depreciation claimed in revised return Assessed income u/s 147 6573180 6993451 7496690 8925790 10337690 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied. 556199 432600 527620 894515 1201374 5.2 We note that the additional income was offered in the return filed under section