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

u/s 148 and make the compliance to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is therefore requested to your goodself may kindly supply the copy of documents impounded during the course of survey to make the necessary compliance to the notices issued under section 148 and 142(1).” 8. The assessee has reiterated

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

u/s 148 and make the compliance to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is therefore requested to your goodself may kindly supply the copy of documents impounded during the course of survey to make the necessary compliance to the notices issued under section 148 and 142(1).” 8. The assessee has reiterated

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

u/s 148 and make the compliance to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is therefore requested to your goodself may kindly supply the copy of documents impounded during the course of survey to make the necessary compliance to the notices issued under section 148 and 142(1).” 8. The assessee has reiterated

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

BAL BHARTI NURSERY SCHOOL,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.62/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.63/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.64/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bal Bharti Nursery School बिधम/ Ito (Exemption 13, Kamla Nehru Road, Allahabad) Vs. Civil Lines, Allahabad, Central Revenue Uttar Pradesh-211001. Building, M. G. Marg, Income Tax Office, Allahabad-211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb6395D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ashish Bansal Revenue By: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.03.2023 For Ay. 2008-09, Ay. 2010-11 & Ay. 2011-12 Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. Since Both Parties Agree That The Penalty Levied By The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) Are Similar/Identical In All The Captioned Assessment Years, The Decision Of Any One Appeal Would Determine The Fate Of Others. Therefore, Appeal Of Ay. 2008-09 Is Taken As The Lead Case, (However, A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Bal Bharti Nursery School The Contents/Details Of Impugned Notices For All The Captioned Years Will Be Discussed Separately Infra).

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act; and moreover, the AO failed to strike down the in-applicable portion of the fault/charge which would have in that event given the assessee an idea of what fault the AO intended to proceed against it for levy of penalty. This omission on the part of AO, vitiates the penalty notices issued

BAL BHARTI NURSERY SCHOOL,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.62/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.63/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.64/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bal Bharti Nursery School बिधम/ Ito (Exemption 13, Kamla Nehru Road, Allahabad) Vs. Civil Lines, Allahabad, Central Revenue Uttar Pradesh-211001. Building, M. G. Marg, Income Tax Office, Allahabad-211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb6395D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ashish Bansal Revenue By: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.03.2023 For Ay. 2008-09, Ay. 2010-11 & Ay. 2011-12 Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. Since Both Parties Agree That The Penalty Levied By The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) Are Similar/Identical In All The Captioned Assessment Years, The Decision Of Any One Appeal Would Determine The Fate Of Others. Therefore, Appeal Of Ay. 2008-09 Is Taken As The Lead Case, (However, A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Bal Bharti Nursery School The Contents/Details Of Impugned Notices For All The Captioned Years Will Be Discussed Separately Infra).

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act; and moreover, the AO failed to strike down the in-applicable portion of the fault/charge which would have in that event given the assessee an idea of what fault the AO intended to proceed against it for levy of penalty. This omission on the part of AO, vitiates the penalty notices issued

BAL BHARTI NURSERY SCHOOL,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.62/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.63/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.64/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bal Bharti Nursery School बिधम/ Ito (Exemption 13, Kamla Nehru Road, Allahabad) Vs. Civil Lines, Allahabad, Central Revenue Uttar Pradesh-211001. Building, M. G. Marg, Income Tax Office, Allahabad-211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb6395D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ashish Bansal Revenue By: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.03.2023 For Ay. 2008-09, Ay. 2010-11 & Ay. 2011-12 Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. Since Both Parties Agree That The Penalty Levied By The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) Are Similar/Identical In All The Captioned Assessment Years, The Decision Of Any One Appeal Would Determine The Fate Of Others. Therefore, Appeal Of Ay. 2008-09 Is Taken As The Lead Case, (However, A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Bal Bharti Nursery School The Contents/Details Of Impugned Notices For All The Captioned Years Will Be Discussed Separately Infra).

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act; and moreover, the AO failed to strike down the in-applicable portion of the fault/charge which would have in that event given the assessee an idea of what fault the AO intended to proceed against it for levy of penalty. This omission on the part of AO, vitiates the penalty notices issued

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.114/Alld//2025 (A.Y. 12-13) “1. That the notice dated 03.04.2013 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act’) and the assessment order dated 31.07.2017 passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant

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.114/Alld//2025 (A.Y. 12-13) “1. That the notice dated 03.04.2013 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act’) and the assessment order dated 31.07.2017 passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant

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.114/Alld//2025 (A.Y. 12-13) “1. That the notice dated 03.04.2013 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act’) and the assessment order dated 31.07.2017 passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant

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.114/Alld//2025 (A.Y. 12-13) “1. That the notice dated 03.04.2013 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act’) and the assessment order dated 31.07.2017 passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant

AJIT TRIPATHI,ALLAHABAD vs. CIT (A), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2017-18 Ajit Tripathi, V. Income Tax Officer, Village Pandor, Jasra, Ward-1(1), Allahabad Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Aknpt9902B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. S.K. Yogeshwar, Adv Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14 02 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16 02 2023 O R D E R

271 A at Rs. 25,000/- ii. That on estimate basis income was estimated Rs. 4,59,800/- as against Rs. 31,177/- shown. iii. That the authority below was not justified in imposing penalty u/s 271A to a petty dairy income. iv. That however assessed tax has also been paid.” 3. The assessee is an individual

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

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

ANOOP SINGH,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2005-06 Anoop Singh V. Income Tax Officer Ahuja Bazar Allahabad Kaushambi Tan/Pan:Aqkps6453R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Jaiswal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2019 O R D E R

u/s 271(l)(c) is attracted. 2. The brief facts of the case are that as per AIR data, the assessee had deposited Rs.11,62,386/- in the bank account with Bank of Baroda. The assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had submitted before the Assessing Officer that there were deposits

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