YASH KUMAR GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 2(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

271(1)(c) are invalid and unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify in the notice under Section 274 whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income," thereby violating principles laid down in various judicial precedents of hon'ble court. 5. That the penalty is not leviable as the alleged

YASH KUMAR GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 2(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

271(1)(c) are invalid and unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify in the notice under Section 274 whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income," thereby violating principles laid down in various judicial precedents of hon'ble court. 5. That the penalty is not leviable as the alleged

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, SHIPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty of Rs.9,47,990/- against the assessee. The penalty so imposed by the AO was consequential to the addition of Rs.32,30,790/- made by the AO to the income

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, GWALIOR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty of Rs.9,47,990/- against the assessee. The penalty so imposed by the AO was consequential to the addition of Rs.32,30,790/- made by the AO to the income

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty of Rs.9,47,990/- against the assessee. The penalty so imposed by the AO was consequential to the addition of Rs.32,30,790/- made by the AO to the income

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

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

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) the Act. In the penalty order, the AO observed that the assessee firm was in the business of civil contracts and working for Government department during the period relevant to the AY 2014-15 and it filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.41,98,630/-. Subsequently, this

TOMAR & BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is attracted on disallowance of expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. With regard to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards sundry creditors/debtors, we observe that the Assessing Officer has not quoted the relevant section, under which he has made the addition. We infer that the Assessing Officer has made addition u/s

SARIF,JALESAR, ETAH vs. ASSESSIN OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), DINESH NAGAR ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

income as declared in original return. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,38,99,338/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained credits in his bank accounts and Rs.1,31,58,116/- as bogus purchases

SARIF,JALESAR ETAH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1) , ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

income as declared in original return. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,38,99,338/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained credits in his bank accounts and Rs.1,31,58,116/- as bogus purchases

POONAM GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GWALIOR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2006-07

penalty on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of her income to the extent of the addition confirmed by ITAT of Rs.70,14,083/- u/s. 271

SHIVA PRESERVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 31.12.2016 by the Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(5), Etawah (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before this Tribunal by 975 days. Considering

JAGBEER SINGH KUSHWAH,MADHYA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(2) GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH

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

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

penalty order dated 30.05.2018 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No. 83 & 84/Agr/2025 2. Brief facts state that the assessee is a non-filer. On the basis of AIR information that the assessee had purchased units of SBI mutual Fund of Rs.5,00,000/- and had also income u/s. 192A of the Act of Rs.1

JAGBEER SINGH KUSHWAH,MADHYA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2) GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH

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

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

penalty order dated 30.05.2018 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No. 83 & 84/Agr/2025 2. Brief facts state that the assessee is a non-filer. On the basis of AIR information that the assessee had purchased units of SBI mutual Fund of Rs.5,00,000/- and had also income u/s. 192A of the Act of Rs.1

SHOBHA RAM SHARMA,MATHURA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

addition of Rs.2,84,61,888/- was made to the income of the assessee by applying net profit rate at 12% and aforesaid penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012-13, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal, confirming the assessment order dated 29.09.2017 ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 passed u/s. 144/147 of the Act and also dismissed assessee’s first appeal, affirming the penalty order dated 19.03.2018 passed u/s. 271

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012-13, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal, confirming the assessment order dated 29.09.2017 ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 passed u/s. 144/147 of the Act and also dismissed assessee’s first appeal, affirming the penalty order dated 19.03.2018 passed u/s. 271

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

additional evidences by the assessee before the Id\nCIT(A) in the above mentioned appeals supra. Accordingly, the penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the act would have no legs to stand at this stage.\nAccordingly, these appeals are allowed.\n7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 367 to\n369/AGR/2025 are allowed and appeals

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the\nsum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of\nRs. 2,50,000/-. These additions/ disallowances were made for want of furnishing\nof requisite evidences by the assessee before the Id AO. Before the Id CIT(A),\nthe assessee furnished additional