SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SRI. ANAND,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

ANURADHA CHIVUKULA CHALLA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, RANGE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(It)A No.585/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Smt.Anuradha Chivukula Challa The Additional Commissioner No.12, Seshu, 12Th Cross Of Income-Tax, International V. Indiranagar 1St Stage Taxation, Range – 1 Bangalore – 560 038. Bangalore. Pan : Bgapc8765M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 08.06.2022. The Order Of The Cit(A) Arises Out Of The Order Of A.O. Imposing Penalty U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017- 2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Imposed U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act.

demonetization period. The assessee claims that she was taken by surprise from the buyers while receiving consideration at the time of registration. The assessee could have delayed the registration by a day or two instead of accepting cash consideration and violating specific provision of IT Act. The assessee has also not pleaded any ignorance of the law. To this extent

SHRISHAILAMALLIKARJUN TRADERS,NARGUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GADAG

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization period i.e. during FY 2016-17 amounting to Rs.4,31,84,135/- and accordingly the assessment proceedings were reopened u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, considering the return of Income filed by the assessee in pursuance to notice u/s 148 of the Act declaring total income of Rs.1,57,170/-, the returned income was accepted by ld. AO considering

NANDIGOWDANAHALLI MANJAPPA PUSHPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BENGALURU

demonetization period and\nsources for remaining cash deposits made of Rs. 14, 20,000/ is not found to\nbe satisfactorily explained. Hence, assessee is not furnished any\ndocumentary evidence to substantiate his claim in respect to remaining cash\ndeposit of Rs. 14,20,000/- and same is added to the returned income u/s\n69A of the IT Act, 1961. (Addition

BANGALORE VENKATAPPA RAVIKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty notice was also issued u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act which was not responded to and therefore assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) at the total income of Rs.1,51,93,220 wherein addition of Rs.76,20,000 was made. 4. Facts relating to this additions is that it was found that during the course of survey

BANGALORE VENKATAPPA RAVIKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed for statistical purposes as directed above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty notice was also issued u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act which was not responded to and therefore assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) at the total income of Rs.1,51,93,220 wherein addition of Rs.76,20,000 was made. 4. Facts relating to this additions is that it was found that during the course of survey

HOLADAGADDE HALAPPAGOWDA DEVARAJ,CHIKMAGALUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMAGALUR

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of bearing of the appeal. appellant humbly prays before the honourable Commissioner of the Income Tax Appeals to grant relief by deleting the additions made to the income. 5) The Appellant craves permission

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed to invite your attention to the Instructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to time, as referred above, through which the Board has emphasized upon the need to focus on gathering evidences during Search/Survey

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed to invite your attention to the Instructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to time, as referred above, through which the Board has emphasized upon the need to focus on gathering evidences during Search/Survey

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed to invite your attention to the Instructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to time, as referred above, through which the Board has emphasized upon the need to focus on gathering evidences during Search/Survey

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed to invite your attention to the Instructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to time, as referred above, through which the Board has emphasized upon the need to focus on gathering evidences during Search/Survey