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 271(1)(c) by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 1975, if the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the additions is either found to be false, or remained unsubstantiated, the additions so made are deemed to be concealed income, and therefore, the penalty provisions are attracted. The case has no application to the points and controversy under question herein

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

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that

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

23,44,980 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the assessment was completed under Section 153C, and no addition was made on the basis of satisfaction recorded under Section 153C. 3. That Ld. Cit(A) failed to consider the legal fact that once proceedings under Section 147 are abated

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

23,44,980 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the assessment was completed under Section 153C, and no addition was made on the basis of satisfaction recorded under Section 153C. 3. That Ld. Cit(A) failed to consider the legal fact that once proceedings under Section 147 are abated

SHIVA PRESERVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 31.12.2016 by the Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(5), Etawah (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before this Tribunal by 975 days. Considering

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

section 68 which was confirmed in appeal. Held that since the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the donors there was no illegality in the orders of the authorities below. The same proposition of law is applicable to the facts of the present case as the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the cash deposits (Capital

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

23)(c) approval was a condition precedent and since, the appellant was not having the mandatory approval, held the appellant to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income and thereafter he levied the penalty of Rs.6,44,353/-. 3.2 In the appeal filed before the CIT(A), the following grounds of appeal were raised: “1. The penalty order u/s 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/-.

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 and fixed for compliance

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

penalty proceedings were initiated, he retracted with his consent. 10.3 The Ld. AR argued that the appellant has produced all books of account before the authorities below, but the same have wrongly been rejected. It is further submitted that since the nature of the business of the assessee is of the works I.T.A Nos. 200 & 201/Agra/2016 19 contractor

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

penalty proceedings were initiated, he retracted with his consent. 10.3 The Ld. AR argued that the appellant has produced all books of account before the authorities below, but the same have wrongly been rejected. It is further submitted that since the nature of the business of the assessee is of the works I.T.A Nos. 200 & 201/Agra/2016 19 contractor

LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE P LTD,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

section 234B and initiation of penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of the Act. That the appellate order dated 30th October, 2017 is arbitrary, capricious and 9. against natural justice and thus deserves to be quashed/annulled. The appellant seeks permission to modify and/or prefer any other ground of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require or justify

TEJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(b) were not answered by the appellant. Thereafter, a show- cause notice under section 144 was issued by the AO. on 16.11.2016 and on its non-service through the speed post, ITI was deputed to serve it personally on the appellant. Vide his report dated 06.12.2016, the ITI has reported that Shri Tej Singh had expired

BHAGIRATH PAKHARIA,JHANSI vs. WARD 2 (3)(1), JHANSI

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

23-03-2022. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and assailed the reassessment jurisdiction on the ground that reasons recorded to reopen the case of the assessee were defective. For the same, Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the reasons recorded by Ld. AO as extracted in the assessment order. The Ld. Sr. DR controverted the arguments

BHAGIRATH PAKHARIA,JHANSI vs. WARD 2 (3)(1), JHANSI

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

23-03-2022. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and assailed the reassessment jurisdiction on the ground that reasons recorded to reopen the case of the assessee were defective. For the same, Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the reasons recorded by Ld. AO as extracted in the assessment order. The Ld. Sr. DR controverted the arguments

BHAGIRATH PAKHARIA,JHANSI vs. WARD 2 (3)(1), JHANSI

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

23-03-2022. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and assailed the reassessment jurisdiction on the ground that reasons recorded to reopen the case of the assessee were defective. For the same, Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the reasons recorded by Ld. AO as extracted in the assessment order. The Ld. Sr. DR controverted the arguments