“levy of penalty”

Umri Pooph Pratappur Toollway Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 25(1), Delhi

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaumri Pooph Pratappur Vs. Acit, Circle 25(1) Tollway Private Limited Cr Building, Ito 907, New Delhi House, Ip Estate 27 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110002 Connaught Place, Delhi – 110001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcu3925G Appellant .. Respondent

that there is grave variance in the reason for initiating of the penalty as mentioned in the assessment order, show cause notice for levy of penalty and the impugned penalty order. Going through the material on record we find that the assessee is engaged in development of roads, on build ... legal. We are of further view that as first appellate authority, CIT(A), while dealing with allegation and ground of challenge of levy of penalty under wrong charge CIT(A) cannot substitute the charge and modify the penalty order, as done in the case before

Sh. Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-34(5), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that inabsence of any specific show cause notice having been issued, the levy of penalty was otherwise wholly illegal. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that penalty proceeding and quantum proceedings are distinct ... Accordingly, we condone the said delay. 18. This is an appeal against the penalty order u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act dated 19.09.2023, levying a penalty of Rs.21,63,113/- in respect of the cash deposits of Rs.3,60,51,890/- made u/s 69A of the Act in the case

Sh. Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-34(5), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that inabsence of any specific show cause notice having been issued, the levy of penalty was otherwise wholly illegal. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that penalty proceeding and quantum proceedings are distinct ... Accordingly, we condone the said delay. 18. This is an appeal against the penalty order u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act dated 19.09.2023, levying a penalty of Rs.21,63,113/- in respect of the cash deposits of Rs.3,60,51,890/- made u/s 69A of the Act in the case

Gopal Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. ITO(OSD) Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) in the facts of the case while upholding the levy of penalty under section 272A(1)(d) erred in not appreciating that during the course of assessment proceedings the various statutory notices (four in numbers) under section ... rejected the said explanation, holding that the assessee’s non-compliance obstructed the assessment proceedings, and considering it a fit case, levied a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- under section 272A(1)(d) 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Anshu Priyadarshini, Dwarka vs. Ward No. 43(4), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7351/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2011-12) Anshu Priyadarshini, Flat No.532, Excellence Apartments, Plot No.4, Sector-18A, Dwarka, Delhi 110078 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Akrpp-8355-N बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-43(4), R. No. 2611, 26Th Floor, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Abhinarayan Mishra, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Keshav Kishore Anand, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissions Of Income Tax-(Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 18.09.2025 Confirming Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Ay 2011-12. 2. Shri Abhinarayan Mishra, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That The Tribunal In Assessee’S Appeal On Merits In Ita 1576/Del/2024 Vide Order 14.08.2024 Has Restored The Case Back To The Assessing Officer (Ao) For De-Novo Assessment. The Present Appeal Is In Respect Of Penalty Levied By The Ao On The Additions Made In Assessment Order Dated 15.12.2018 Passed U/S.144/147 Of The 2 Act. Since, The Assessment Order Has Been Set Aside By The Tribunal, The Penalty Proceedings Arising Therefrom Would Not Survive.

vide order dated 14.08.2024 has restored case of the assessee to AO for denovo assessment. Since, the substratum for levy of penalty has eroded the penalty would not survive. 5. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open