MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. xi. The Assessee have right reserve to Amend modify delete and make any additional grounds of appeal. 2.3 During the appellate proceedings the assessee raised additional grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji as under: 1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice u/s.1

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. xi. The Assessee have right reserve to Amend modify delete and make any additional grounds of appeal. 2.3 During the appellate proceedings the assessee raised additional grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji as under: 1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice u/s.1

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

penalty initiation. These instructions do not\nshow non-application of mind; rather, they are an additional layer of\nverification meant to ensure correctness and completeness of the\nassessment. The learned DR emphasised that such directions are routine\nand reflect due diligence and not mechanical approval.\n\n18.4 The learned DR also clarified that the issuance of approval letters\nand assessment

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

penalty initiation. These instructions do not\nshow non-application of mind; rather, they are an additional layer of\nverification meant to ensure correctness and completeness of the\nassessment. The learned DR emphasised that such directions are routine\nand reflect due diligence and not mechanical approval.\n18.4 The learned DR also clarified that the issuance of approval letters\nand assessment orders

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH, HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

132 of the Act conducted at the assessee’s premises on 01.05.2013 notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.10.2013 in response to which the assessee filed a return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.11,65,180/-; which included an amount of Rs.9,91,675/- on account of undisclosed income admittedly earned from money lending

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH, HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

132 of the Act conducted at the assessee’s premises on 01.05.2013 notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.10.2013 in response to which the assessee filed a return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.11,65,180/-; which included an amount of Rs.9,91,675/- on account of undisclosed income admittedly earned from money lending

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

132 of the Act conducted at the assessee’s premises on 01.05.2013 notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.10.2013 in response to which the assessee filed a return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.11,65,180/-; which included an amount of Rs.9,91,675/- on account of undisclosed income admittedly earned from money lending

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

132 of the Act conducted at the assessee’s premises on 01.05.2013 notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.10.2013 in response to which the assessee filed a return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.11,65,180/-; which included an amount of Rs.9,91,675/- on account of undisclosed income admittedly earned from money lending

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

132 of the Act conducted at the assessee’s premises on 01.05.2013 notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.10.2013 in response to which the assessee filed a return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.11,65,180/-; which included an amount of Rs.9,91,675/- on account of undisclosed income admittedly earned from money lending

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

132 ITA Nos.352 - 357/Bang/2021 Page 15 of 30 and the said amount was not disclosed in the original returns filed u/s. 139 and therefore, held that the undisclosed hand loan disclosed in the returns filed amounted to concealment and accordingly, levied the penalty Ws. 271(1)(c). 5.3. During the penalty proceedings before the AO, the appellant submitted that

SHRI S KRISHNA PRASAD ,BALLARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A).” 18. The provisions of sec. 271AAB(1) read as under:- 271AAB(1) The Assessing officer may, not withstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct ITA Nos.1172 to 1178 /Bang/2018 Page

HARSHAVARDHAN ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all 13 appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.–– For the purposes of this section,–– (a) “specified date means

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

271)(SC), wherein it was held that “there was no material on which the ITO could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. There were many surmise and conjectures and if the conclusion is the result of suspicion, which cannot take place of proof in this matter.” 5.20. Further, reliance was placed on the judgement