SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

271(1)(b) for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17 is deleted. 10. For the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That in any view of the matter imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- vide order dated 30/01/2019 by the assessing officer and his action as confirmed by the Commissioner

SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

271(1)(b) for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17 is deleted. 10. For the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That in any view of the matter imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- vide order dated 30/01/2019 by the assessing officer and his action as confirmed by the Commissioner

SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

271(1)(b) for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17 is deleted. 10. For the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That in any view of the matter imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- vide order dated 30/01/2019 by the assessing officer and his action as confirmed by the Commissioner

LATE SRI ZIA USMANI THROUGH L/H AND WIFE SMT. MEHVISH USMANI,ALLAHABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

u/s 271(1)(c). Assessing Officer Page 7 of 12 Late Shri Zia Usmani 6. From a perusal of this notice, it is crystal clear that the charge for which penalty is proposed to be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whether for concealment of income, or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, is not specific

SHRI KAMALENDRA BHADUR MISHRA,,SONEBHADRA vs. DCIT, RANGE-III, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kamalendra Bhadur Mishra V. Dcit Prop. M/S K.S. Engineearing Range Iii Iii-19, Jme Colony Mirzapur Shakti Dnagar, Sonebhadra Tan/Pan:Adbpm4445K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K.R. Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 02 2020 O R D E R

u/s 271 (1) (c) lie in case of estimated income. 2. The grievance of the assessee is against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, which has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A). ITA No.240/ALLD/2017 Page 2 of 7 3. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee invited

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

u/s section 11. (3) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of net excess of income over expenditure of Rs.3,00,11,855/ under the head Income from business or profession. (4) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.36

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

u/s section 11. (3) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of net excess of income over expenditure of Rs.3,00,11,855/ under the head Income from business or profession. (4) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.36

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

u/s section 11. (3) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of net excess of income over expenditure of Rs.3,00,11,855/ under the head Income from business or profession. (4) Because the CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.36

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, ,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD vs. JYOTI MEDISERVICES LTD., ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), ALLAHABAD vs. MONAD INFRASOLUTION LIMITED, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and the Cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, V. Monad Infrasolution Limited, Ward-2(2), Allahabad C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Alld/2021 In Assessment Year: 2015-16 Monad Infrasolution Limited, V. Income Tax Officer, C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Ward-2(2), Allahabad Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty order u/s 271 (1) (b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 20.11.2017 was passed Imposing Rs. 10,000/-. Final Show cause notice dated 04.12.2017 was issued through registered post /email, fixing the date of compliance on 11.12.2017 at 12.50 P.M at 38 M.G Marg, Kayaker Bhawan and show cause why following addition may not be made in your

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income. Addition of Rs. 78,059/-/” 4c. The AO further observed that there are cash deposits recorded in the cash books maintained by the assessee, which were found during the course of survey operations u/s 133A on 24.02.2012, as detailed hereunder: S.No. Date Concerned Perons/Firm name Amount

DCIT CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. SHRI NEERAJ AGRAWAL, MIRZAPUR

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income. Addition of Rs. 78,059/-/” 4c. The AO further observed that there are cash deposits recorded in the cash books maintained by the assessee, which were found during the course of survey operations u/s 133A on 24.02.2012, as detailed hereunder: S.No. Date Concerned Perons/Firm name Amount

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT CIR.-1, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c). This penalty order was also passed ex parte and was subsequently dismissed by the first appellate authority. The assessee subsequently filed appeals against the summary dismissal of his appeals and the Hon’ble ITAT observed, that the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c). This penalty order was also passed ex parte and was subsequently dismissed by the first appellate authority. The assessee subsequently filed appeals against the summary dismissal of his appeals and the Hon’ble ITAT observed, that the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 2(1), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c). This penalty order was also passed ex parte and was subsequently dismissed by the first appellate authority. The assessee subsequently filed appeals against the summary dismissal of his appeals and the Hon’ble ITAT observed, that the ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice

ARPIT HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

11 assessees through a common letter do not meet this requirement, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted. (F.1.3) Next, the learned Counsel for the assessee challenged the validity of the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act, contending that the approvals were granted by JCIT vide aforesaid common letter dated 31/07/2017 in a non speaking manner. The letter