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

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

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. 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee

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

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. 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee

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

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 56 of the Income Tax Act, hence AO is correct in law in treating it as "Income from other sources." This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued before us at length with the support of detailed paper book and synopsis which are placed on record. He submitted that the judgement relied

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 56 of the Income Tax Act, hence AO is correct in law in treating it as "Income from other sources." This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued before us at length with the support of detailed paper book and synopsis which are placed on record. He submitted that the judgement relied

ARUN KUMAR SHARMA,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 24.10.2017 and u/s 271(1)(c) dated\n26.04.2018 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Firozabad\n(hereinafter referred to as 'Id. AO'). Since these are quantum and penalty\nappeals for the same assessment year, they are taken up together and\ndisposed

ARUM KUMAR SHARMA,FIROZABAD vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER, FIROZABAD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 24.10.2017 and u/s 271(1)(c) dated 26.04.2018 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). Since these are quantum and penalty appeals for the same assessment year, they are taken up together and disposed of by this

PREM LATA VERMA ,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), ALIGARH, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and by charging the interest u/s 234B of the Act. Ground No. 6: That the appellant reserves the right to add, modify, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds.” ADDITIONAL GROUND: "7. That the assessment order concluded 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act is bad in the eyes

RAHUL GARG,MORENA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-II, GWALIOR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: The Learned Cit (Appeals) Who

penalty under Section 271(l)(b) of the Income Tax Act, against which an appeal was preferred before the learned CIT (Appeals) who vide their order dated 26.07.2017 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before us and submitted that as per the assessment order dated 29.03.2014, which was passed u/s

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

penalty under Section 271(l)(b) of the Income Tax Act, against which an appeal was preferred before the learned CIT (Appeals) who vide their order dated 26.07.2017 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before us and submitted that as per the assessment order dated 29.03.2014, which was passed u/s

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]

271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.42,09,426/- in respect of cash deposit in bank account amounting to Rs.1,21,92,400/- and credits to the tune of Rs.1,91,908/- in the said bank account. The penalty order was passed in absence of any reply received by the assessee. Earlier, the assessee was also completed

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

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

144 and 144B of the Act, upon rejection of ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay and also dismissed assessee’s first appeal, affirming the penalty order dated 27.09.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the ground that quantum addition made by Assessing Officer in the assessment order, stood confirmed

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

144 and 144B of the Act, upon rejection of ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay and also dismissed assessee’s first appeal, affirming the penalty order dated 27.09.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the ground that quantum addition made by Assessing Officer in the assessment order, stood confirmed

NEERAJ KUMAR,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(3), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshneeraj Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 18/24, Ghadi Hussaini Ward-2(1)(3), Prakash Nagar, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajwpn8393C Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Garg, Adv Shri Pradumn Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

penalty under section 271(1)(b). Neeraj Kumar 2. Because the learned CIT(A) orders dated 25/08/2025 and 24/09/2025 under section 154 failed to rectify clear mistakes, ignored jurisdictional defects, and were passed without proper application of mind. 3. Because the notice issued under section 148 was never validly served on the appellant, as the address used by the Department

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