“levy of penalty”

Omveer Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiyaita No. 8108/Del/2018 [A.Y 2009-10] Ita No. 8109/Del/2018 [A.Y 2009-10]

case after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In so far as the appeal relating to levy of penalty is concerned, we find that there was delay of two months in filing the appeal and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without going ... aside the quantum addition to the file of the ld. CIT(A), we direct the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act after deciding the quantum appeal and after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard

Babli Kukreja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2008-09] Babli Kukreja Vs Acit C-59, Friends Colony East, Central Circle-15 New Delhi Room No. 383, E-2, Ara Pan-Aampk7753L Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ravinder Singh Ahuja, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07.12.2021

appeal:- 1) “That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of A.O. in the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c). 2) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order

Shri Puneet Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

find any reason why the ld. CIT (Appeals) should deny justice to the assessee and not decide the appeal on merits. The levy of penalty has a very serious consequence leading to various penal action, atleast in the interest of substantial justice, the marginal delay should have been done

ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Charchit Agarwal, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Charchit Agarwal Central Circle – 28 1245, Kucha Mahajani, New Delhi Chandni Chowk New Delhi - 110006 Pan No. Adspa 0329 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Revenue By Shri Kumar Pranav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.09.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 29, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

that was surrendered during the course of survey operation and including into the return of income, AO vide order dated 30.06.2017 levied the penalty of Rs.1,14,75,092/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the penalty order passed by AO, assessee carried the matter before ... vide order dated 14.09.2018 in Appeal No.114/17-18/CIT(A)-29 deleted the levy of penalty. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in totally

Giriraj Singh Jindal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

directed against the ex- parte order dated 13.07.2018 of the learned CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon, relating to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Levy of penalty of Rs.35,000/- u/s 271AAA of the Act is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel

Rachit Prints Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2552/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Rachit Prints Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, C/O Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv., Circle-2, 104, Pankaj Tower, 10 L.S.C., Meerut Savita Vihar, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccr4932R Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2021

notice issued was defective as it did not specify as to which limb of Section 271(1)(c) has been invoked for levy of penalty. The said notice is as under: 2 Rachit Prints Pvt. Ltd. 4. We have also gone through the notice u/s 274 r.w.s

Malik Movies Organiser P.Ltd, Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-16, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

No.1172/Del./2018 “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding levy of penalty by relying upon department circular by ignoring judgment of jurisdictional High Court. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case ... 269SS of the Act, initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, AO proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- equal to 100% of amount of loan or deposit so taken by the assessee in cash

Adinath Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Adinath Properties Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, B-1/12, Vasant Vihar, Vs. Circle-1(1), New Delhi – 110 057. Gurgaon Pan: Aagca2030B (Appellant) (Respondent)

requisite details for allowability of the complete expenditure. The disallowance is made only when it was selected for the scrutiny. He, therefore, levied a penalty of Rs.4,86,675/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before ... Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). In view of this, we do not find any merit for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act when 3/4th of the expenditure is allowed based on agreements and invoices and only 1/4th of the expenditure

Honest Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

neither on facts or in law, justified in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.96,217/- u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the penalty proceedings had been initiated as per the order of assessment for one default which is furnishing inaccurate particulars of income ... justified changing over the default while levying the penalty in consequent of such initiation for the default for which penalty proceedings were initiated. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law and also in circumstances of the case in confirming imposition of penalty of Rs.96

Chander Yadav, Noida vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

assessee is directed against the order dated 31.12.2018 of the learned CIT(A)-I, Noida, relating to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Levy of penalty of Rs.4,97,500/- by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) and upheld

G H Associates, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 33(4), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

grossly erred in failing to appreciate that alleged notices were not served on the appellant and hence levying of penalty was unsustainable in law. 4. The appellant craves leave for addition, modification, alteration, amendment of any of the grounds of appeal. ” 3. Briefly stated the facts shows that the assessee ... August, 2014 levying penalty of Rs.80,000/- for 8 different occasions Rs.10,000/- for each default. 5. Against the above order of the levy of penalty, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). It was stated that the assessment order was passed under Section

DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi vs. Mayar Health Resorts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. Mayar Health Resorts Pvt. Circle – 16(2) Ltd., New Delhi Plot –A, Basant Lok, Community Centre, Vasant Vihar, Pan No. Aadcm 6414 C New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None- Revenue By Shri Manu Chaurasiya, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.07.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 38, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Learned DR and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the deletion of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that while deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, CIT(A) has noted

Kirti Mehta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

relying on several decisions, he held that the assessee has concealed income and has clear-cut intention to evade Income Tax. Therefore, he levied a penalty of Rs. 30,37,095/- by passing an order dated 25.05.2017 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Assessee aggrieved with that ... lower authorities. Looking at para No. 4.2 of the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) it is clear that the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty stating that assessee has concealed his income because of incorrect claim of expenses and has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. CIT (Appeals

ACIT, Circle-76(1), New Delhi vs. Tv 18 Broadcast Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Tv 18 Broadcast Ltd., Circle – 76(1) 414,1St Floor, Empire New Delhi Complex, Lower Parel Mumbai, Murtijapur, Maharashtra – 110 001 Pan : Aaccg 3666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, C.A. Revenue By Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 01.01.2018 in Appeal No.287/2016-17/CIT(A)-41/A.Y.2009-10 deleted the levy of penalty by observing as under: 4.5.1 “The appellant has contended that at the year end provisions aggregating Rs.7,09,06,524/- were made under various heads ... mere precaution on his part so that the amount of provisions does not get ignored. The another ground taken by the JCIT for levy of penalty and treating the appellant in default that credit to any account whether called suspense account or by any name in the books of accounts

M/S. Singhal Strips Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2003-04

Learned Assessing Officer, simultaneously, initiated proceedings under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act and concluded them by order dated 10/3/2014 with the levy of penalty of Rs. 67,93,848/-being the minimum penalty at hundred percent of the tax sought to be evaded. Ld. CIT(A), by order ... dated 5/1/2017 confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal. Hence the assessee is in appeal before us against the levy of penalty. 4. Argument of the Ld. AR is twofold. Firstly, he submits that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof but it is only

Smt. Shobha Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Shobha Sekhari, Vs Acit, 448-451, Chinmin Farms, Central Circle-15, Village Satbari, New Delhi. Mehrauli, New Delhi. Pan: Aatps1222M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri H.K. Chaudhary, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th January, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.46,03,531/- Made By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 & Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issued Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act Was Carried Out By The Investigation Wing Of The Department On 11.11.2010 In Tinna Group Of Cases Including The Assessee. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,28,60,948/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs.5,38,413/-. The Addition Was Made On Account Of Capital Gain Of Rs.2,23,03,125/- On Transfer Of A Land Measuring 39 Bighas Situated At Village Rojka Gujjar Distt. Sohna (Haryana). While Doing So, The Ao Rejected The Claim Of This Land As Agricultural Land On Which An Amount Of Rs.29,410/- Was Shown As Agricultural Income. The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed By The Cit(A). The Ao, Thereafter, Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee, The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs.46,03,531/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. In Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld The Action Of The Ao.

directed against the order dated 11th January, 2017 of the CIT(A)-26, New Delhi, relating to assessment years 2010-11. 2. Levy of penalty of Rs.46,03,531/- made by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 and upheld

Singhal Sunrise Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Singhal Sunrise Steels Pvt. Vs Ito Ltd. 241, Loha Mandi, Bsr Ward-2(3), Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Aajcs7938 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 02.11.2021

order as well. The Ld. AR further submitted that the penalty provision being quasi judicial, unless there is specific charge there cannot be levy of penalty. Therefore, the order levying penalty is wrong 3 and bad in law. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Samal Infra Projects P.Ltd, Gr.Noida vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

Appeals) -1 Noida (hereinafter referred to as CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the order of levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (“the Act”) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income (the AO considered it as concealment ... order as well. The Ld. AR further submitted that the penalty provision being quasi judicial, unless there is specific charge there cannot be levy of penalty. Therefore, the order levying penalty is wrong and bad in law. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Mahesh Chand Goyal (HUF), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2011-12

Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee is mainly aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs. 71,23,650/- on account of following additions :- S. No. Particulars (Amount in Rs.) 1. Addition on a/c of Profit ... from that from the perusal of the penalty notice also, it is seen that no charge has been specified. Thus, the initiation of levy of penalty itself is invalid and void ab intio in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court

Shanti Chemsteel Pvt. Ltd., Muzaffarangar vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Muzaffarnagar

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shanti Chemsteel Pvt. Ltd. Dcit C/O. Dinesh Mohan, Vs Circle-2 Advocate, 2 Anand Vihar, Muzaffarnagar Lane No.1, Circular Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan No. Aaics8818D (Appellant) (Respondent)

erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.32500/- levied by the AO u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 3. The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 31.03.2016 framed u/s.143 (3) of the Act. The AO, interalia made addition of Rs.496000/- on account of penalty ... Products 322 ITR 158 squarely apply on the facts of the case in hand, therefore, we do not find any merit in the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act and the same is directed to be deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal filed