SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(6), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after ITA nos.1182 & 1192/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 2 referred to as "the Act") and ITA No. 1192/Ahd/2019 is the penalty appeal arising in the matter of penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after ITA nos.1182 & 1192/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 2 referred to as "the Act") and ITA No. 1192/Ahd/2019 is the penalty appeal arising in the matter of penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block