M/S. PASUPATI BREEDING FARM PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act had observed that ; "It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act had observed that ; "It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing

M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act had observed that ; "It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing

PANDA INFRATECH LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Panda Panda Infratech Infratech Limited, Limited, Vs. Dy. Dy. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Plot Plot No.620, No.620, Janpath, Janpath, Income Tax, Central Circle- Income Tax, Central Circle Saheed Saheed Nagar, Nagar, 2, Bhubaneswar. 2, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aafcp7216 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & C.A.Parida & C.A.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orde Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 Dated 10.8.2024 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10013/2018 2/10013/2018-19 Against Against The The Penalty Penalty Order Order Passed Passed U/S.271Aab Of The Act U/S.271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal: The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal: The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal:

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act,) to be bad in law as it did not specify Which limb of Section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act, the penalty

SANTOSH KUMAR KHANDELWAL,BARIPADA vs. ACIT, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.449/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) वष"

3 of the assessment order, after computation of income the Assessing Officer has observed as under: “Initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 270A of the I.T. Act, separately.” 7. From the perusal of the above observation of the Assessing Officer, it clearly appears that Assessing Officer has failed to record any satisfaction whether proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act are initiated

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

penalty levied u/s.271D of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court are as under :- 5. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. In the decision reported in 304 ITR 417 (CIT V. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited), this Court had an occasion to consider

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

penalty levied u/s.271D of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court are as under :- 5. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. In the decision reported in 304 ITR 417 (CIT V. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited), this Court had an occasion to consider

DIBYAJYOTI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, inter alia, notices u/s.274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 12.3.2014. We find the only issue to be decided in the grounds of appeal is regarding the sustainable of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) when the inappropriate words in the notice

DIBYAJYOTI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, inter alia, notices u/s.274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 12.3.2014. We find the only issue to be decided in the grounds of appeal is regarding the sustainable of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) when the inappropriate words in the notice

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. G.V.V.CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

Appeal of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.297/Ctk/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S G.V.V. Constructions Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.358, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 3649 Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.36/Ctk/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S G.V.V.Constructions Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.358, Bhubaneswar Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 3649 Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Citdr धनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar In I.T.Appeal No.0593/2013-14, Dated 9-3-2015, Passed U/S.271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Matter Was Called For Hearing. Hence, We Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & The Submissions Of Ld. Dr. 3. We Take Up The Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.297/Ctk/2015, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

section 271(1) (c) of the Act. A mere agreement for addition does not constitute concealment of income and levy of penalty. The mere lack of challenge by the Appellant cannot be held as evidence that culpability or complicity in concealing incomes or furnishing inaccurate particulars has been accepted. j) While the taxes payable are mandatory dues from the taxpayer

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

u/s. 271(l)(c) was sustained by the Hon'ble Mumbai IT AT on the ground that the AO therein had levied penalty after due application of mind, in as much as in the assessment order, it was mentioned that penalty proceedings were being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty was finally levied

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

u/s. 271(l)(c) was sustained by the Hon'ble Mumbai IT AT on the ground that the AO therein had levied penalty after due application of mind, in as much as in the assessment order, it was mentioned that penalty proceedings were being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty was finally levied

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

u/s. 271(l)(c) was sustained by the Hon'ble Mumbai IT AT on the ground that the AO therein had levied penalty after due application of mind, in as much as in the assessment order, it was mentioned that penalty proceedings were being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty was finally levied

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

u/s. 271(l)(c) was sustained by the Hon'ble Mumbai IT AT on the ground that the AO therein had levied penalty after due application of mind, in as much as in the assessment order, it was mentioned that penalty proceedings were being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty was finally levied

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

u/s. 271(l)(c) was sustained by the Hon'ble Mumbai IT AT on the ground that the AO therein had levied penalty after due application of mind, in as much as in the assessment order, it was mentioned that penalty proceedings were being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty was finally levied

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

u/s. 271(l)(c) was sustained by the Hon'ble Mumbai IT AT on the ground that the AO therein had levied penalty after due application of mind, in as much as in the assessment order, it was mentioned that penalty proceedings were being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty was finally levied

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

u/s. 271(l)(c) was sustained by the Hon'ble Mumbai IT AT on the ground that the AO therein had levied penalty after due application of mind, in as much as in the assessment order, it was mentioned that penalty proceedings were being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty was finally levied

BIJAY BRATA KUNDU,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD- 3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-2014

3. At the time of hearing, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer is not sure under which limb of provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty is to be levied. He has not struck off P a g e 1 | 4 ITA No.61/ CTK/2020 Asse ssment Year : 20 13