VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that

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

natural justice. The appeal is, thus, liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 6 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 ITA No. 464/Agr/2025: 14. This appeal challenges the sustenance of penalty imposed u/s. 271

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

natural justice. The appeal is, thus, liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 6 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 ITA No. 464/Agr/2025: 14. This appeal challenges the sustenance of penalty imposed u/s. 271

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

271(1)(c) of the Act imposing a penalty or Rs.2,13,400/- vide order dated 30.05.2018 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the addition made and penalty imposed by the learned Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee’s both first appeals. 4. We have perused the records and heard learned representatives

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

271(1)(c) of the Act imposing a penalty or Rs.2,13,400/- vide order dated 30.05.2018 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the addition made and penalty imposed by the learned Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee’s both first appeals. 4. We have perused the records and heard learned representatives

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 order under Section 271(1)(c) without affording the appellant an adequate opportunity to present its case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Also during the appeal proceedings only one Notice of 7 days' time limit was served on 06-11-2024 on Mail id of the assessee and no physical copy of the Notice was served

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]

271 (1) (c)of income tax act, in compliance of such phone call the appellant visited to the income tax office on 27-12-2024 and received the said notice and then he came to know the fact that the said appeal was ex parte decided against him. This has resulted in a denial of natural justice, as the assessee

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

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 260/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under : 3. At the very outset, it is noted that both these appeals were filed

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

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 260/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under : 3. At the very outset, it is noted that both these appeals were filed

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

MR.SHAILENDRA KUMAR,AGRA vs. ITO,WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

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

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 228/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under. ITA No. 228/Agr/2025: 3. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee e-filed

MR.SHAILENDRA KUMAR ,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

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

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 228/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under. ITA No. 228/Agr/2025: 3. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee e-filed

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

M/S KUNJ POWER PROJECTS PVT.LTD,MATHURA vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS) , KANPUR, KANPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

natural justice.\n2) That the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts.\n3) That Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in sustaining the penalty of Rs.\n1462179/- levied U/s 271C by the Addl. CIT(TDS) Kanpur vide order\ndated 14/09/2021 bearing DIN KNP/95/14092021/00182. The penalty of\nRs.1462179/- deserves to be deleted in whole

MOHAR SINGH RAJPUT,GWALIOR vs. ITO1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

271(1)(c) was passed, levying penalty. 3. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation

SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

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

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Perused the records and heard the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee and the ld. Departmental representative for the Revenue. 3. At the very outset, ld. Representative for the assessee submitted that these appeals have been filed on 21.02.2025 against impugned orders each dated 18.01.2024 by a delay of about 340 days