“concealment of income”

Prashant Manohar Bhagwat, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 86/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prashant Manohar Bhagwat H. No.11, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Ahfpb6105K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

u/s.271(1)(c) may not be imposed on him. As the A.O in the aforesaid SCN’s had mentioned both the defaults, i.e. “concealment of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” w.r.t. the aforesaid addition of Rs.4,94,743/- (supra), therefore, by using “OR” as a conjunction between ... imposed on the assessee. In our considered view, as both of the two defaults envisaged in Sec. 271(1)(c) i.e ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ are separate and distinct defaults which operate in their respective independent and exclusive fields, therefore, it was obligatory

Rajesh Kalra, Hanumangarh Town vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoterajesh Kalra, Vs. Dcit, Circle – 1, Prop. M/S. Zodiac Bikaner – 334001, Imaging & Diagnostic Rajasthan. Centre, Hanumangarh -335513, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Akapk9599E Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Cit(A) & Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

challenged the levy of penalty and legal issue of non striking of charge in the penalty notice i.e. whether the charge is for concealment of income or Rajesh Kalra, Hanumangarh. furnishing of in accurate particulars of income and the impugned notice was filed. We find the Honble High Court ... view that in the present case the A.O has not strike off the charge for levy of penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and quash the penalty notice. And allow the grounds

Maruti Trading Co, Jagaatsinghpur vs. ITO Ward Paradeep, Paradeep

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Maruti Trading Co., Maruti Trading Co., Panisalia, Vs. Ito, Ward, Paradeep. Ito, Ward, Paradeep. Jagatsinghpur. Jagatsinghpur. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aalfm 3677 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/0 /08/2023 O R D E R

order dated 22.6.2018. It was the further submission that the show cause notice did not specify whether the penalty was being levied for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was the further submission that the ld CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty by rejecting ... submission that just because the assessee has not filed appeal against the original assessment order, it does not mean that there is concealment of income and penalty is liable to be levied. It was the submission that the penalty as levied by the AO and confirmed

Shri Maheshbhai M.Pandya, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6, Vapi

In the result, all the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.388/Srt/2018 (Ay 2008-09) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Maheshbhai M Pandya, Income Tax Officer, 9, Dipkiran Co-Op. Hsc, Ward-6, Vapi, Vs Society, Nr.N.H.-8, Gidc, Vapi-396195 Pan No. Afupp 6452 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section147, replace his original return of income, for such purpose, such returned filed is treated as returned filed under section 139. The alleged concealment of income as shown in the return of income under section 148, which is nothing but return under section 139 and the question of applicability ... after considering the written submission of assessee held that assessee is claiming that there was no wilful intention of concealment of income, however, assessee in the original return of income failed to disclose LTCG and the return was not revised until notice issued under section 148 was not issued

NA vs. Ari Malesar Behdin Anjuman, Navsarivs.Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.336/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navsari Malesar Behdin Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward, Room Anjuman, Agary Street, Vs No.105, 1St Floor, Anavil Malesar, Business Centre, Aayakar Navsari-396445 Bhavan, Adajan Hazira Road, Pan No. Aaatn 6124 C Adajan, Surat-395007 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

pending before Tribunal. We find that the assessing officer levied the penalty by invoking Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) i.e., deemed concealment of income and levied penalty of Rs.6,34,621/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded, on the disallowance of exemption under section

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.”

Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved Deepak Kumar Rajoria vs. ITO beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee ... notice under Section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 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

M/S. the Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S.The Central Vs. The Acit, Circle Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara. Mahendra Gargieya & Rajasthan. Associates, Adv , No537-538,5Thfloor, Mahimatrinity, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur – 302019, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat8126B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 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), Ajmer Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S. The Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,Bhilwara. 1.The Impugned Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 18.05.2017 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same Kindly Be Quashed.

applied his mind and non striking of charge in the penalty notice i.e. whether the charge is for concealment of income or furnishing of in accurate particulars of income and further at page 21 of the paper book, the impugned notice was placed. We find the Jurisdictional Honble High Court ... view that in the present case the A.O has not strike off the charge for levy of penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and quash the penalty notice. And allow the grounds

Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir. - 4, Surat

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील (खोज और ज"ती) सं./It(Ss)A Nos.32/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent)

income to avoid payment of tax. Therefore, Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated on this issue for concealment of income.” 5. We have noted that identical worded assessment order was passed in other co-owner case i.e. Smt. Prabhaben Harshadrai Desai, relevant part ... income to avoid payment of tax. Therefore, Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated on this issue for concealment of income.” 6. In view of the above aforesaid factual and legal discussion and respectfully following the decision of Madras High Court in Kumararani Meenakshi Achi (supra

Mirnal Mehta, Cuttack vs. ITO Wrd-2(4), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.170/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Mrinal Mehta, Vs Ito, Ward-2(4), Cuttack Iswar Dham, Alamchand Bazar, Cuttack Pan No. :Afupm 1868 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28/04/2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052428107(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ld. Ar Has Filed His Written Submissions, Which Read As Under :- Written Submission Facts Of The Case -- The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. The Appellant Filed His Audited Return Of Income For The Aforesaid Assessment Year. The Appellant'S Return Was Selected For Scrutiny By Cass On Reason For Substantial Cash Deposits In Banks. Notices Were Served On Appellant Regarding The Matter For Verification. In Response To The Notices & Show Cause Notices The Appellant Produced All The Materials Alongwith Books Of Accounts & All The Bank Accounts Statement For Verification. The Same Was Duly Verified By The Assessing Officer & Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) On 31/12/2019. The Ao On Verification Of Bank Accounts Found That The Assessee Has Deposited Rs.58,65,000/- In The Bank Account With Icici Bank Ltd. & Treated As An Unaccounted Cash Sales Of The Assessee & Thus Gross Profit Of The Assessee Was Estimated @ 8% On The Total

trite law that any additions made on account of estimated rate of profit does not amounts to under reporting or concealment of income as such there can be no question of imposing of penalty. Moreover, merely because the appellant had not filed any appeal against the additions cannot