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

u/s 271(1)(c) which has to be met by him, the observation of the AO in the assessment order alongside his action of non striking off the irrelevant clause in the notice was held be rendering the notice not complying with the principles of natural justice. The Bench thus deleted the penalty. 30. Again, a similar issue came

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

35. (Kar) has held that: “It is to be kept in mind that section 271(1)(c) is a penal provision and such a provision has to be strictly constructed. Unless the case falls within the four corners of the said provision, penalty cannot be imposed.” (Para-12). In “Dilip N. Shroff Vs. JCIT”, 291 ITR 519 (SC). Section

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)

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court

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)

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court

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)

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court

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

Section 271(1)(c) without striking off the irrelevant portion, thereby rendering the initiation of penalty proceedings legally unsustainable. 5. Assessee filed application for admission of above additional ground. This being jurisdictional issue, all the material facts already available on record. He prayed that the same may be admitted for adjudication. The ld. DR has objected for admission. After considering

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

Section 271(1)(c) without striking off the irrelevant portion, thereby rendering the initiation of penalty proceedings legally unsustainable. 5. Assessee filed application for admission of above additional ground. This being jurisdictional issue, all the material facts already available on record. He prayed that the same may be admitted for adjudication. The ld. DR has objected for admission. After considering

NALANDA BUILDERS &DVELOPERS I P LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 271 AAB (1)(c ) are clearly attracted and opportunity was given to the appellant by issuing of notice for enhancement on 19/01/2017. The date of hearing was fixed for 30/01/2017. However, non- appeared and only adjournment letter was sent. Next date of hearing was fixed for16.02.2017. None attended on this1 date also. Thus, it is clear that appellant

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

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

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

35,000/- (c) Under the head 'On account of Loose Papers' .... Rs.10,00,000/- 4. Since, no Return of Income was filed by the assessee under section 139, Notice under section 148 was issued in the name of the assessee on 17.09.2010, and ultimately on 28.07.2011 assessee filed Return of Income. In between Notices under section 142(1) were also

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

35 available on record, assessee filed first appeal on 27.02.2024 against the assessment order dated 22.05.2023 beyond the period of limitation along with the prayer to condone the delay caused in filing the first appeal on the ground that the assessment order dated 22.05.2023 came to the knowledge of the assessee only when he received the penalty order

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

35 available on record, assessee filed first appeal on 27.02.2024 against the assessment order dated 22.05.2023 beyond the period of limitation along with the prayer to condone the delay caused in filing the first appeal on the ground that the assessment order dated 22.05.2023 came to the knowledge of the assessee only when he received the penalty order

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,MAINPURI vs. ITO-2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the observation as above

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

35 taxmann.com 250. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: I.T.A No.289/Agra/2018 2 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) “1. Tha the penalty imposed and sustained by the C.I.T. (A) at Rs. 354013/- is illegal and arbitrary. 2. That the penalty imposed and sustained at Rs. 354013/- by the C.I.T. (A) on the basis of illegal notice issued u/s 271

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

35 it was clearly stated by the assessee that notices/communications be not sent by E-mail. It was stated that the assessee did not received any notice from ld. CIT(A). The prayers were 11 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 made by ld. Counsel for the assessee to restore the matter back to file

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

35 it was clearly stated by the assessee that notices/communications be not sent by E-mail. It was stated that the assessee did not received any notice from ld. CIT(A). The prayers were 11 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 made by ld. Counsel for the assessee to restore the matter back to file

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

35 it was clearly stated by the assessee that notices/communications be not sent by E-mail. It was stated that the assessee did not received any notice from ld. CIT(A). The prayers were 11 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 made by ld. Counsel for the assessee to restore the matter back to file

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

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. 228/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under. ITA No. 228/Agr/2025: 3. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee e-filed his return of income