ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD,JHANSI vs. DCIT -2(3)(1), JHANSI

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

penalty of Rs.98,000/- imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. AIR information was received in respect of the assessee, as per which, cash deposits

B K KESHARWANI, AGRA vs. MADHUR MITTAL, AGRA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ld Cit(A), Who Partly Allowed

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, ld CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s. 80C of the Act. 6. Aggrieved revenue has filed this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,43,07,000 made

HARSH SALUJA,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

penalty of concealment, proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1 )(C) is initiated.” 3. In the impugned order, however, the ld. CIT(A) has found as follows: “3. 5.3 I have gone through the assessment order, submissions of the assessee and legal position in this regard. It is seen that although assesses has claimed that the cash deposits

M/S VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. D.C.I.T., RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

penalty u/s 271(1)(C). In this case assessee has made a claim which is wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished to explain the cash deposits

AMIT JAIN,FIROZABAD vs. ITO-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed”

Bench: The Learned Cit (A).

271(1)(c) causing prejudice and taking away the right of the assessee to raise the issue in first appeal as and when penalty is levied. Because, while making the assessment the ‘AO’ and while sustaining 3. addition Ld. ‘CIT(A)’ made various observations/conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. 4. Because the appellant denies liability of interest

JAY SINGH,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 200, 201 & 198/Agr/2025 are allowed for

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

penalty order dated 22.09.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The facts in all the three appeals are almost either similar or consequential. Hence, for the sake of brevity and convenience, these appeals are being decided by the common order. The facts of ITA No. 200/Agr/2025 for the assessment year 2013-14 are only being narrated

JAY SINGH,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 200, 201 & 198/Agr/2025 are allowed for

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

penalty order dated 22.09.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The facts in all the three appeals are almost either similar or consequential. Hence, for the sake of brevity and convenience, these appeals are being decided by the common order. The facts of ITA No. 200/Agr/2025 for the assessment year 2013-14 are only being narrated

JAY SINGH,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 200, 201 & 198/Agr/2025 are allowed for

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

penalty order dated 22.09.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The facts in all the three appeals are almost either similar or consequential. Hence, for the sake of brevity and convenience, these appeals are being decided by the common order. The facts of ITA No. 200/Agr/2025 for the assessment year 2013-14 are only being narrated

MANISH KUMAR CHATURVEDI,JHANSI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(2), JHANSI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Manish Kumar Chaturvedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1882, Shivaji Nagar, Jhansic Ward-2(3)(2), 284001 Jhansi 284 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Akkpc5294Q Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2025

penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act and under section 270A(2) (b) and 271F of the Act is unwarranted. Manish Kumar Chaturvedi 9. That the appellate order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against the law and facts of the appellant's case.” 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance

MOHAR SINGH,AGRA vs. I.T.O. WARD 2(1)(2)AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) there is no real delay in filing second appeal before the HONORABLE ITAT AGRA BENCH. However as per the income tax portal the Id. CIT (Appeals) /NFAC uploaded the impugned order on 17-01-2024. However the appeal is filing on 07-01- 2025 i.e with the imaginary delay of days which

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961. That the appellate order dated 30th March, 2016 passed by the 7. learned CIT(A)-I, Agra is against the law and facts of the assessee’s case. The appellant also seeks permission to modify and/or adduce any other ground/grounds of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961. That the appellate order dated 30th March, 2016 passed by the 7. learned CIT(A)-I, Agra is against the law and facts of the assessee’s case. The appellant also seeks permission to modify and/or adduce any other ground/grounds of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require

ARUN KUMAR SHARMA,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , FIROZABAD

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

u/s 271(1)(c) dated\n26.04.2018 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Firozabad\n(hereinafter referred to as 'Id. AO'). Since these are quantum and penalty\nappeals for the same assessment year, they are taken up together and\ndisposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.\n2.\nThe only effective issue to be decided

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(4), MATHURA

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

cash deposits amounting to Rs.2,80,000/-, the AO estimated the assessee’s income from Rasleela at Rs.16,00,408/-, treating the same to be bogus. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), by virtue of the impugned order, estimated the assessee’s income from Rasleela at Rs.8 lac, by allowing 50% as expenditure and treating the same to have been

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), MATHURA

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

cash deposits amounting to Rs.2,80,000/-, the AO estimated the assessee’s income from Rasleela at Rs.16,00,408/-, treating the same to be bogus. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), by virtue of the impugned order, estimated the assessee’s income from Rasleela at Rs.8 lac, by allowing 50% as expenditure and treating the same to have been

WASIM KHAN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHIVPURI

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.42,09,426/- in respect of cash deposit in bank

NEERAJ KUMAR,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(3), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshneeraj Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 18/24, Ghadi Hussaini Ward-2(1)(3), Prakash Nagar, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajwpn8393C Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Garg, Adv Shri Pradumn Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

penalty under section 271(1)(b). Neeraj Kumar 2. Because the learned CIT(A) orders dated 25/08/2025 and 24/09/2025 under section 154 failed to rectify clear mistakes, ignored jurisdictional defects, and were passed without proper application of mind. 3. Because the notice issued under section 148 was never validly served on the appellant, as the address used by the Department

ARUM KUMAR SHARMA,FIROZABAD vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER, FIROZABAD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

u/s 271(1)(c) dated 26.04.2018 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). Since these are quantum and penalty appeals for the same assessment year, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The only effective issue to be decided