SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 271(1)(c) is made by the assessee. Thus, ld. DR heavily relied upon the finding recorded in the penalty order and prayed to sustain the same. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record and gone through the various judicial precedent cited by both the parties to drive home to their respective contentions

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.

3)/144 and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs. 40,000 @ Rs.10,000 for 4 instances of non-compliance. This order was also not properly served and received by assessee, so certified copy was obtained on 30.05.2016 and appeal is preferred with delay. 5. Respected Sir, the Ld. AO has failed in facts & law in imposing penalty

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

penalty on him should not be made under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said notice was duly served upon the assessee but no one appeared on the given date. Thereafter, two more notices u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) have been issued to the assessee on 26.04.2022 and 19.05.2022. The said notices duly served

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

penalty on him should not be made under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said notice was duly served upon the assessee but no one appeared on the given date. Thereafter, two more notices u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) have been issued to the assessee on 26.04.2022 and 19.05.2022. The said notices duly served

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

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, the penalty

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

271(l)(b) of the Act, I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 3 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted toraise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing.” 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee filed the return and computing profit and gains on presumptive

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

271(l)(b) of the Act, I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 3 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted toraise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing.” 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee filed the return and computing profit and gains on presumptive

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

271(l)(b) of the Act, I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 3 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted toraise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing.” 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee filed the return and computing profit and gains on presumptive

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

271(l)(b) of the Act, I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 3 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted toraise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing.” 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee filed the return and computing profit and gains on presumptive

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), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Similarly, in the printed notice u/s 274 r.w.s 270A, it is essential to tick the applicable part in printed penalty notice and strike off inapplicable part in printed penalty notice. Thus, if penalty is initiated only for under reporting of income

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

3) of the Act on 12.12.2008. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who allowed part relief and upheld the addition of Rs. 1,10,895/-. 5. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and levied the penalty of Rs. 37,350/- u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee

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.

3. Subsequently the AO has initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non compliances of notices in the assesseement proceedings. The A.O has dealt on the facts, information of the scrutiny assessment and in spite of issuing the penalty notices on various dates 29.01.2015, 25.05.2015 & 15.07.2015 none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor the explanations

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.

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, the penalty

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SURAJ FABRICS INDUSTRIES LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Of Income-Tax, Circle, Vs Ltd., 224A, Elegant Tower, Bhilwara A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal Pan: Aabcs8988B Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06.09.2017 Deleting The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:- “1. Cancelling The Penalty Levied For Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit On A/C Of Share Capital Of 10,00,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Quantum Addition Made By The Ao Was Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Identity & M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd.

3. It is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) because ITAT in assessee’s own case has deleted the addition of Rs. 10 Crore made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. The relevant paragraph of the Ld. CIT(A’s) order is as under:- “(i) The appellant has submitted that

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, the penalty

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

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)

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 148. No incriminating documents indicating suppression or bogus transactions were found during the survey. The expenses in question were supported by internal vouchers and recorded in regular books. The Assessing Officer accepted the revised returns

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)

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 148. No incriminating documents indicating suppression or bogus transactions were found during the survey. The expenses in question were supported by internal vouchers and recorded in regular books. The Assessing Officer accepted the revised returns