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

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 that the claim raised under section 80IA, as was disallowed in quantum proceedings, was certified to be correct by the Chartered Accountant, who furnished the prescribed certificate

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) against the assessee if he has\nconcealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate\nparticulars of such income. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is\nliable to be allowed and the penalty levied against the assessee is\nliable to be deleted and deleted accordingly.\n8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

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

section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, as its equivalent, ‘concealment of income’, and ‘suggestio falsi’, literally, ‘suggesting or stating a falsehood’, which manifests itself as ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof’, are two distinctly separate charges; that leveling of either of these charges has to be explicitly brought to the notice/knowledge of the assessee, sans which, the assessee, under

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

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

271(l)(c) can be sustained that too for concealment of Income as initiated in the Assessment Order for A.Y. 2009-10. 3. Vide Assessment Order dated 05.12.2011 penalty was initiated for raising non- admissible claim under section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Act. In view of the development of facts as stated in above para no penalty is exigible

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

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

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

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

12,34,280/-. The information flagged by the Id\nDDIT/ ADIT(Investigation), Jhansi as per risk profiling on Insight Portal on\n10.03.2021 stated that source of cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the\nassessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the Id\nJurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated\nproceedings u/s

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

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

12,34,280/-. The information flagged by the Id\nDDIT/ ADIT(Investigation), Jhansi as per risk profiling on Insight Portal on\n10.03.2021 stated that source of cash/ credit entries in the bank account of the\nassessee are not explained to the extent of Rs. 28,20,500/-. Accordingly, the Id\nJurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after recording reasons initiated\nproceedings u/s