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 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

VIKAS VIJAY GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby\ndismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, the assessment order\nerroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant\nfinding of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is reproduced as under:\n"5. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned Standing Counsel\nfor the Revenue and Shri Rishi Raj Kapoor, leamed counsel

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

151 ITR 548 (Delhi) it has been held that an assessment cannot be set to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because of the failure of the income tax officer to record his opinion about the leviability of penalty as penalty proceedings do not form a part of an assessment proceedings and such finding has also been given

SHRI VITTHALBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent ) Appellant Respondent 1. 04/Ahd/2018 2008-09 Vithalbhai Gordhanbhai D.C.I.T Prajapati, 9, Central Circle- Abbhikaram Complex, 1(2) Ahmedabad Near Bhaikaka Nagar, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Pan: Afzpp0251L

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for imposing of penalty, the return filed u/s 139 of the Act, has not to be considered. As such the return filed u/s 153A of the Act needs to be considered. 3) To impose the penalty, there should be additional income over and above the income declared in return filed u/s 153A

RAVJIBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Sureshbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0781K Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajivbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0713R

151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- 1. Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified

SHRI VITTHALBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Sureshbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0781K Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajivbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0713R

151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- 1. Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified

SHRI SURESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Sureshbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0781K Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajivbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0713R

151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- 1. Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(a) was not imposable upon assessee. In this case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1979-80 on March 23, 1982, declaring nil income, though the due date for filing was July 31, 1979. The delay of 32 months

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(a) was not imposable upon assessee. In this case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1979-80 on March 23, 1982, declaring nil income, though the due date for filing was July 31, 1979. The delay of 32 months

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(a) was not imposable upon assessee. In this case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1979-80 on March 23, 1982, declaring nil income, though the due date for filing was July 31, 1979. The delay of 32 months

THE ITO, WARD-9(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ATUL S. MEHTA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

271 (1)(c) of the Act comes in picture and A.O is justified in levying the penalty . But, even in these circumstances, the A.O has to draw a proper satisfaction in respect of various issues for which penalty has to be imposed. It is a settled legal preposition that assessment and penalty are two different and distinct proceedings

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. D.B. CORP. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, penalty @100% the amount of tax sought to be evaded on account of filing of inaccurate particulars of income, which works out of Rs.1,03,66,151/- against the maximum penalty of Rs. 3,70,98,453/- on the assessee, was levied by the A.O. 2.5. On the other hand, the appellant

HARSHADKUMAR BHOGILAL RAVAL,UNJHA, DIST. MEHSANA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PATAN, GUJARAT, PATAN, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance to the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act. Thereafter, a separate penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was passed on 12.01.2022 imposing a penalty of Rs.20,000/- on the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate