LT. SHRI MRADUL GARG,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD,MATHURA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD, MATHURA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. LT. SHRI MRADUL GARG, MATHURA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

SAURABH AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

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

142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,38,99,338/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained credits in his bank accounts and Rs.1,31,58,116/- as bogus purchases, vide assessment order dated 22.05.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s

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

142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,38,99,338/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained credits in his bank accounts and Rs.1,31,58,116/- as bogus purchases, vide assessment order dated 22.05.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s

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

JAGGO,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Jaggo Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Sh. Indar H. No. 6, Azampur Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura Mathura, Mathura Pan : Ayopj8958J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 17.11.2025 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Aggrieved With The Above Order, Assessee Is In This Appeal, Raising Following Grounds : “1. Because In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Information/Explanation Along With The Documents During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Above Notice Was Issued Through Registered E-Mail Id & Fixed For Compliance On 26.02.2021, After Laps Of Considerable Time, The Assessing Officer Issued The Another Notice U/S 274 To The Assessee R.W.S 271(1)B) Of The Act Why Penalty U/S 271 Of The Act Should Not Be Initiated & Levied. In Compliance, The Assessee Not Submitted Any Reply. Accordingly, Assessing Officer Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/-.

penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the notice u/s 142

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the 7 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 assessment proceedings, and filed part-replies to the queries made by the AO during assessment proceedings. The AO obtained bank statements directly from the bank. The assessee submitted

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, SHIPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the 7 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 assessment proceedings, and filed part-replies to the queries made by the AO during assessment proceedings. The AO obtained bank statements directly from the bank. The assessee submitted

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, GWALIOR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the 7 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 assessment proceedings, and filed part-replies to the queries made by the AO during assessment proceedings. The AO obtained bank statements directly from the bank. The assessee submitted

SHRI SHANKAR ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED,ALIGARH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalshri Shankar Ispat Pvt. Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac/Ito Ltd., Near Stha Sugar, Ward-4(1)(1) Mills Kasimpur Road, Aligarh-110001 Aligarh, U.P.-202001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aancs6930P Appellant .. Respondent

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’]. 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. P a g e | 2 Shri Shankar Ispat Pvt.Ltd. 3. Learned DR vehemently argues that both the lower authorities herein have rightly imposed section 271

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

u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) and show cause notice 2 | P a g e ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 were issued, which remained un-responded on behalf of the assessee. Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment proceedings and made and addition of Rs.60,85,071/- to the returned income of assessee, assessing total income at Rs.64,59,640/-. 4. Aggrieved

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

u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) and show cause notice 2 | P a g e ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 were issued, which remained un-responded on behalf of the assessee. Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment proceedings and made and addition of Rs.60,85,071/- to the returned income of assessee, assessing total income at Rs.64,59,640/-. 4. Aggrieved

M/S. HERITAGE JVM BUIILDERS P LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: The Learned Cit (Appeals) Who

142(1) of the Income Tax Act dated 07.11.2013, the assessee partly complied with and the case was fixed for 10.12.2013 by the AO. On the aforesaid date, none attended, consequently for this non compliance of hearing on 10.12.2013, the AO has imposed penalty under Section 271(l)(b) of the Income Tax Act, against which an appeal was preferred