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

income from "undisclosed sources". The AO levied the penalty of Rs. 15,83,190/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as the penal provisions have held to be strictly construed, the notice issued u/s

SHRI THAKUR CHAPLOT,RAJSAMAND vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeyshri Thakur Chaplot Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Pan: Aappc9323H Income-Tax, Circle-2, C/O Rajendra Jain, Advocate, Udaipur, Rajasthan, Kar 106, Akshay Deep Complex, Bhawan, Sub-City 5Th B Road,Sardrpura, Centre,Saveena,Udaipur Jodhpur (Raj)-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent)

undisclosed portion of income, the penal proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated on 22.01.2013 by invoking notice u/s. 274 read with sec. 271 of the Act. On considering the reply of the assessee the AO imposed a penalty

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)

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 of the Act. On considering the reply of the assessee the AO imposed a penalty

SHRI SHIV SINGH CHOUHAN,RAJSAMAND vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeyshri Shiv Singh Chouhan Vs Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Rajendra Jain, Advocate, Income-Tax, Circle-2, 106, Akshay Deep Complex, Udaipur, Rajasthan 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Pan: Cifps9604M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

undisclosed portion of income, the penal proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated on 29.01.2013 by invoking notice u/s. 274 read with sec. 271 of the Act. On considering the reply of the assessee the AO imposed a penalty

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

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

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

271(1)(c). But the Tribunal held that because the respondent could not produce the parties, it did not follow automatically that an adverse inference should be drawn that the amount represented undisclosed income of the respondent and that the Revenue was not justified in drawing the adverse inference and adding the amounts of the cash credits to the income

CHANDAN SINGH,POKRAN vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

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

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

undisclosed cash deposited amounting to Rs. 11,59,789/- is added to the total income of the assessee us 68 of the IT Act under the head Income from Other Sources. The assessee has concealed the particulars of income, therefore, penalty proceeding u/s 271

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN ,HANUMANGARH vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Us.

penalty u/s 271(1)© is hereby initiated for concealing true income on the amount of Rs. 43,00,935/- being undisclosed

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) :

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 whom the appellant has received share application money and genuineness of the transactions: > Copy of the share application > Copy

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

271(1)(c) holding that not to tick correct limb of the notice regarding\nconcealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income, renders the notice and\nconsequential proceedings as invalid and void, was confirmed by the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of M/s. SSSA Emerald Meadows. Copy of notice u/s\n148 is enclosed-2.\n(2)\nThat

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

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

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..

undisclosed sources and added the same to the total income and assessed the assessee's total income at Rs. 27,20,923/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that 15 notices were issued requiring the assessee to file the details in support

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

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