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

5. The aforesaid notice (APB page 7) reads as follows: “Sub: Penalty notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 - A.Y. 2008 -09 – Reg:- Whereas in the course of the proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 it appears to me that you;- ** have concealed the particulars of your income or have

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

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 - A.Y. 2008 -09 – Reg:- Whereas in the course of the proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 it appears to me that you;- ** have concealed the particulars of your income or have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before

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

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

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

5. That the penalty is not leviable as the alleged error in computation of indexed cost of acquisition was a bona fide and inadvertent clerical mistake, which was voluntarily corrected by filing a revised return in response to notice under Section 148. 6. That the penalty order is vitiated by non-application of mind and mechanical satisfaction

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

5. That the penalty is not leviable as the alleged error in computation of indexed cost of acquisition was a bona fide and inadvertent clerical mistake, which was voluntarily corrected by filing a revised return in response to notice under Section 148. 6. That the penalty order is vitiated by non-application of mind and mechanical satisfaction

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

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

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

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

5 that all the grounds relates to only one issue of imposition of 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

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

5 & S.A. No.06/Agra/2018 (in I.T.A No. 349/Agra/2018) production of the partners during appellate proceedings was made as before the ITAT, the counsel of the assessee has accepted that these are unaccounted income in the hands of the assessee but it was held that the confession of the counsel of the assessee is not valid in law and the case

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

5 ITA 53/Agra/2016 VII. ITAT Agra Bench, Agra in the cases of-  Hariyana Delhi Tpt Commission Agency Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 72 TTJ189  LaxminarayanShivhare Vs. JCIT, ITA No. 68/Agr/13  Osho Associates Vs. ACIT Circle(3), ITA No. 132/Agr/13  ACIT Vs. Manjeet Singh, ITA No. 4459/Del/92 7. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) contending that

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

5 granted by the Chief CIT, Bhopal which was a mandatory condition to claim any exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act. (ii) Even till finalization of the assessment proceedings & penalty proceedings also the appellant was not having approval. 3.2 Conduct of the appellant in claiming exemption u/s 10(230) in the return of income even in the absence

SH. MANOJ AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O.-2(2), GWALIOR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is required to be failed and accordingly we dismiss both the appeals

271(1)(b) were also issued to the assessee. 4. Thereafter, a Notice under section 142(1) along with a detailed Questionnaire was issued to the assessee fixing compliance on 28.11.2011. In response to Assessee along with his Chartered Accountant appeared before the AO on 12.12.2011, filed written reply along with Audit Report offering a sum of Rs14

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

11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D), 2024 SCC online SC 489, has observed that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity, that the length of delay is a relevant matter, which