TARUNA VATSSA,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AGRA

Appeal is allowed

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961,\n[hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'].\n2. Heard both parties at length. Case file perused.\nPage 2\nITA No.312/Agr/024\nTaruna Vatssa\n3. Coming to the assessee's sole substantive ground seeking to\nreverse both the lower authorities' action levying Section 271(1)(b) “non-\ncooperation” penalty

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

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

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

penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the act would have no legs to stand at this stage.\nAccordingly, these appeals are allowed.\n7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 367 to\n369/AGR/2025 are allowed and appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 388 to\n391/AGR/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.\nOrder pronounced

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

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

penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the act would have no legs to stand at this stage.\nAccordingly, these appeals are allowed.\n7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 367 to\n369/AGR/2025 are allowed and appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 388 to\n391/AGR/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.\nOrder pronounced

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

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

penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the act would have no legs to stand at this stage.\nAccordingly, these appeals are allowed.\n7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 367 to\n369/AGR/2025 are allowed and appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 388 to\n391/AGR/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.\nOrder pronounced

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

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

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

TOMAR & BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short), deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer on the basis of estimation and rest of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to modify the penalty levied. In this regard, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has made

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

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

penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the act would have no legs to stand at this stage.\nAccordingly, these appeals are allowed.\nIn the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 367 to\n369/AGR/2025 are allowed and appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 388 to\n391/AGR/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.\nOrder pronounced

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Appeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Similarly

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Appeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Similarly

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Appeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Similarly

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

SHYAM SINGH YADAV,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(2), GWL, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shyam Singh Yadav, Vs. Ito, Opp. Doordarshan Kendra, Ward-2(2), Thatipur Gaon, Morar, Gwalior, Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abhpy8702B Assessee By : Shri S. C. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shalenndra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2025

u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 04.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-3(2), Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in passing an ex parte

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