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.

U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, therefore, we thought it fit to dispose off all the grounds by this consolidated order. 9. The ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied upon the written submissions submitted before him which are reproduced below: With

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

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 specifying the limb of charge. 6.1 Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment in case

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

271(1)(c). Accordingly, the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed.” 4. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 1 relates to ld. CIT (A) has erred in not quashing the penalty order passed under section 271E

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

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 upon the assessee. 3. Thereafter, this office

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

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 upon the assessee. 3. Thereafter, this office

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

section 271(1)(b)/274 of the Act. Finally, the penalty was levied amount to Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR submitted the assessment order related to assessment year

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

section 271(1)(b)/274 of the Act. Finally, the penalty was levied amount to Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR submitted the assessment order related to assessment year

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

section 271(1)(b)/274 of the Act. Finally, the penalty was levied amount to Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR submitted the assessment order related to assessment year

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

section 271(1)(b)/274 of the Act. Finally, the penalty was levied amount to Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR submitted the assessment order related to assessment year

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

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 carried the matter

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

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.

4,16,300/- + Rs. 5,85,000/-). Accordingly, the AO levied the penalty of Rs. 2,10,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A), and furnished the written submission which has been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2 of the impugned order

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.”

u/s 270A is in force to replace 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

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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 specifying the limb of charge. 6.1 Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment in case

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

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

u/s 271AAA can be imposed on the undisclosed income and the term undisclosed income for the purpose of section 271AAA is defined in explanation to section 271AAA. As per the provision and the explanation no penalty can imposed on the addition on the basis of deeming provisions of section 50C. 3 Ummaid Mal Singhvi 6] Without prejudice to above

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)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), are summarised as under: Particulars 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Original Return 30.09.12 29.09.13 28.11.14 30.9.15 17.10.16 filed on 4 Income Declared 4773180 5593450 5789180 6030920 7237690 Return filed u/s

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)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), are summarised as under: Particulars 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Original Return 30.09.12 29.09.13 28.11.14 30.9.15 17.10.16 filed on 4 Income Declared 4773180 5593450 5789180 6030920 7237690 Return filed u/s