SH. SACHIN ARORA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

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

section 274 of the Act is a prerequisite sine qua non for the levy of concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c), or whether it is not so, the initiation of penalty proceedings, as contained in or evincible from the assessment order amounting to sufficient notice to the assessee, as maintained by the Department. It is also up for adjudication

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

11 & ITA No.193/Agra/2017 on the footing that even if inadvertently particulars are not given, if the authority finds that the explanation given is not bona fide, penalty u/s. 271 would be warranted. In “HCIL Kalindee Arsspl” (supra), penalty under section 18. 271(l)(c) imposed on disallowance made under section 80IA, which was deleted by the ITAT on the ground

M/S RAMESHTH CONSTRUCTION ,JHANSI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(3)(1) , JHANSI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\nof the Act levied the penalty of Rs 1,26,320/-.\n3. Aggrieved the order of the AO, the assessee has filed the appeal\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dated 26-04-2023 dismissed\nthe appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before us on the\nfollowing grounds;\n1. That having

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the 'Act' as per settled judicial position. 4 | P a g e 10. BECAUSE, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty at 200% of the tax sought to be evaded, which is highly excessive, unjustified, and disproportionate to the alleged default, particularly when no deliberate concealment or malafide conduct was established, only

SH. GIRRAJ KISHORE AGARWAL, HUF,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271(1)(c). It is Said down that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and the burden of proof that there is no guilty mind is on the assessee. It is specifically stated that when the explanation offered is found to be false or when the assessee fails to provs. that the explanation

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) dated 14/06/2019 & relevant quantum order U/s 153C / 143(3) dated 28/12/2018 are without jurisdiction. The penalty order as well as the quantum order are passed by the assessing officer who does not hold the valid charge to assessee the cases selected U/s 153A & 153C. 11. That the penalty is otherwise excessive, arbitrary, and deserves to be deleted

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) dated 14/06/2019 & relevant quantum order U/s 153C / 143(3) dated 28/12/2018 are without jurisdiction. The penalty order as well as the quantum order are passed by the assessing officer who does not hold the valid charge to assessee the cases selected U/s 153A & 153C. 11. That the penalty is otherwise excessive, arbitrary, and deserves to be deleted

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

DIXIT RICE MILL ,AURAIYA vs. DCIT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

u/s 143(1) being bad in law is liable to be quashed. 4. Because in any view of the matter, no opportunity was provided to the assessee, by the CPC, before making such disallowance and therefore the disallowance being made is against the principle of natural justice and bad in law and hence liable to be deleted. 5. Because

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained merely because the addition was confirmed by appellate Tribunal, without appreciating the explanation submitted. 4. Because, and without prejudice to aforesaid, learned 'CIT (Appeals)' has erred and failed to appreciate that penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be levied based on 'tax' sought to be evaded under

SMT. ASHA RANI GUPTA,AGRA vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty of Rs.52,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the ‘concealment 8. of particulars of income’ and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ referred to in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act denote to different connotation. For this purpose, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme

M/S NARESH KATARE, CONTRACTOR,GWALIOR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, GWALIOR

In the result, appeals of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) can not be ruled out. III. 124 ITR 376 (Madras HC) Rathnam& co. vs. IAC. IV. 236 ITR 977 (SC) the apex court in the case of CIT vs B.A. Balasubramanian & Brothers Co. decision of hon’ble Madras High Court affirmed, cited 124 ITR 376. V. 118 Taxman 324 (SC) and 251 ITR 99 (SC) Maka

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

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 in terms of advance for sale of land is also found to be wrong as assessee could not file any details of land that was sold or any agreement to sell

M/S MISS HILL EDUCATION SOCIETY,GWALIOR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section, which may be approved by the prescribed authority. The AO observed that in the absence of approval by the prescribed authority, the assessee could not enjoy exemption u/s 10 (23C) of the Act. The assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.40,18,770/-. Vide application filed u/s 154 of the Act, the assessee claimed depreciation. The AO allowed depreciation

MANAS SEWA SAMITI,ALIGARH vs. ADDL. C.I.T. RANGE-I, ALIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

11 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case do not lay down a sound basis for imposition of penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the act. 5. BECAUSE, in any view of the matter the penalty order is bad on facts and in law.” 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits, as also stated

BANCO CONSTRUCTION,BANSAL KOTHI, NEHRU COLONY THATIPUR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhbanco Construction, Vs. Acit, Bansal Kothi, Nehru Faceless, Gwalior Colony, Thatipur, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabfb7336D Assessee By : Shri Anurag Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.06.2025 by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CITA was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1