TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the 'Act' as per settled judicial position. 4 | P a g e 10. BECAUSE, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty at 200% of the tax sought to be evaded, which is highly excessive, unjustified, and disproportionate to the alleged default, particularly when no deliberate concealment or malafide conduct was established, only

MR .AKSHAT DONERIA ,NOIDA vs. ITO 4(1) , AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

5 we find that non-appearance of the assessee before the AO was caused by non-receipt of the notice. This in our considered opinion can be construed as reasonable cause under section 273B for non-compliance by the assessee. Under such circumstances, rigors of penalty under section 271(1)(b) are not attracted in the case of the assessee

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

271(1)(c) are invalid and unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify in the notice under Section 274 whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income," thereby violating principles laid down in various judicial precedents of hon'ble court. 5. That the penalty is not leviable as the alleged

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

271(1)(c) are invalid and unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify in the notice under Section 274 whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income," thereby violating principles laid down in various judicial precedents of hon'ble court. 5. That the penalty is not leviable as the alleged

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

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

1. The appeal in ITA No. 318/AGR/2025 for AY 2025, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] dated 12.08.2022 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 31.12.2016 by the Assessing Officer

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act to impose penalty. 3. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the findings of lower authorities. 4. Considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record. 5. We observe that various courts have held that penalty cannot be imposed u/s

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

5 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 the court must not start with merits of the main matter. However, the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. 12. Thus, the issue of condonation of delay in the proceedings

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

5 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 the court must not start with merits of the main matter. However, the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. 12. Thus, the issue of condonation of delay in the proceedings

D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. M/S PNC INFRATECH LTD., AGRA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Learned counsel first of all takes us to para 7.2 of the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 in which the addition made by the Assessing Officer was only of proportionate administrative expenditure than the issue forming subject matter of section 147 reopening for back to back contracts as noted by the CIT(Appeals

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

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

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) the Act. In the penalty order, the AO observed that the assessee firm was in the business of civil contracts and working for Government department during the period relevant to the AY 2014-15 and it filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.41,98,630/-. Subsequently

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(1

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

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

5 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 has stated in Form No. 35 that notices/communication may not be sent by email . It is also averred that the assessee lost contact with said advocate at Shivpuri, after permanently shifting to Mathura, UP. It is also averred that notices issued by ld. CIT(A) by email to the assessee

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

5 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 has stated in Form No. 35 that notices/communication may not be sent by email . It is also averred that the assessee lost contact with said advocate at Shivpuri, after permanently shifting to Mathura, UP. It is also averred that notices issued by ld. CIT(A) by email to the assessee

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

5 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 has stated in Form No. 35 that notices/communication may not be sent by email . It is also averred that the assessee lost contact with said advocate at Shivpuri, after permanently shifting to Mathura, UP. It is also averred that notices issued by ld. CIT(A) by email to the assessee

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