SH.MOHIT BATOLA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CC, DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mohit Batola Vs Acit 155, Village Miyanwala Central Circle P.O.-Harrawala, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aftpb3533M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Verendra Kalra, Ca Revenue By Shri S.K.Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 Order

addition of INR 27,66,635/-; INR 1,26,41,300/- and INR 4,12,050/- against returned income of INR 12,72,956/-. Thereafter, the impugned order of penalty u/s 271

SHRI PURAN CHAN & CO.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CC-DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

penalty has been\npassed u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) in\nconsequent to the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on\n28/12/2018. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the Assessee preferred\nan Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated\n17/01/2024, deleted certain additions

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DEHRADUN, SUBHASH ROAD DEHRADUN vs. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF UTTARAKHAND LTD. , I.T. PARK, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit Vs State Infrastructure & Circle-1(1) Industrial Development Dehradun Corporation Of Uttarakhand- Uttarakhand Ltd., 29 Iie, Sahastradhara Road (It Park) Road, Haripuram, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan-Aahcs7324R Revenue Assessee Revenue By Shri Pramod Verma, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Sahil Kala, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. The Claim Of The Assessee Was That It Had Suo-Motto Withdrew The Inadvertent Amount Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80Ia Of The Act However, The Ao Has Levied The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By Ao Which Was Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A). 3. Ld. Cit (A) By Observing That Under Identical Circumstances, Penalty Levied For Ay 2011-12 Was Deleted By His Predecessor. Since The Ld. Cit(A) Has Followed The Order For Ay 2011-12 Wherein Penalty Levied Under Identical Circumstances, Was Deleted Which Facts Has Not Been Controverted By The Revenue. The Relevant Observation Of Ld. Cit(A) While Deleting The Penalty Are Reproduced As Under:-

addition made by AO in assessment order and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6.2 AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income

SHRI PRITPAL SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Pritpal Singh, Vs. Acit, 71, Guru Road, Circle-2, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahkps3632F Assessee By : Shri Savyasachi Kumar Sahai, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

additional income u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and paid due taxes thereon with applicable interest. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued only to regularise the said revised return filed on 29.11.2016. Ultimately in the reassessment proceedings, the revised income filed on 29.11.2016 was accepted by the ld AO and penalty proceeding u/s 271

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

additional ground of appeal\nand quashed the assessment order passed u/s 148 of the Act. The\nother grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are taken on merits\nbecame academic.\n19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.\nITA No.78/DDN/2024 [AY 2014-15]\n20. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the penalty\norder u/s 271

MRS. NIDHI YADAV,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, RUDRAPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.115/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.117/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 Nidhi Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-801, Forest Residency, Ward 2(1)(4), Dehradun, Uttarakhand Income Tax Office, Pin Code: 248014 Rudrapur, Uttarakhand Pan: Acapy5157E (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mohit Dev, Ca Respondent By Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

additions as under: - “A. That section 69A is not applicable on the appellant as the appellant is in receipt of the source of credit entries as appearing in the bank accounts of the appellant. B. That reopening of assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act based on investigation wing report is bad in law.” 4. The relevant

SMT. NIDHI YADAV,DEHRADUN vs. ITO- W-2(1)(4),, RUDRAPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.115/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.117/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 Nidhi Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-801, Forest Residency, Ward 2(1)(4), Dehradun, Uttarakhand Income Tax Office, Pin Code: 248014 Rudrapur, Uttarakhand Pan: Acapy5157E (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mohit Dev, Ca Respondent By Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

additions as under: - “A. That section 69A is not applicable on the appellant as the appellant is in receipt of the source of credit entries as appearing in the bank accounts of the appellant. B. That reopening of assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act based on investigation wing report is bad in law.” 4. The relevant

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

additional ground of appeal and quashed the assessment order passed u/s 148 of the Act. The other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are taken on merits became academic. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.78/DDN/2024 [AY 2014-15] 20. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the penalty order u/s 271

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

income filed. It is\nthus submitted that even otherwise, the notice claimed to have\nbeen issued u/s 148 through e-mail was sent at the wrong mail id\nand therefore, neither the notice u/s 148 was served upon the\nassessee nor further notices issued u/s 142(1) during the\nassessment proceedings reached to the assessee. In this regard,\nattention

SARASWATI DYNAMICS P.LTD,ROORKEE vs. ACIT, HARIDWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

addition made by the AO in the assessment order has been confirmed by the CIT(A). 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without proving either the concealment of income

SARASWATI DYNAMICS P.LTD,ROORKEE vs. ACIT, HARIDWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

addition made by the AO in the assessment order has been confirmed by the CIT(A). 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without proving either the concealment of income

HOTEL SAURAB,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

Income Tax (Appeals)-IV [hereinafter 1 I.T.A. No. 2438/Del/2019 referred to CIT (Appeals)] Kanpur, dated 28.01.2019 for assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case the learned CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the penalty imposed on the appellant by the learned

M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

addition made\ntowards the LPSC on accrual basis and further direct to delete the\nenhancement made by Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground of appeal Nos. 3\n& 4 raised by the assessee are allowed.\n23. Ground of appeal No.5 raised by the assessee is with respect to\ninitiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which

SANJAY RAWAT,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order as affirmed by the CIT(A) is illegal and void-ab-initio as the approval granted u/s 151 is illegal and mechanical in nature. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law as well

SANJAY RAWAT,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT CENTRAL CRICLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order as affirmed by the CIT(A) is illegal and void-ab-initio as the approval granted u/s 151 is illegal and mechanical in nature. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law as well

SH.SANJAY RAWAT,,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order as affirmed by the CIT(A) is illegal and void-ab-initio as the approval granted u/s 151 is illegal and mechanical in nature. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law as well

SHIV RATAN EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARIDWAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

additional tax liability, therefore, in our considered opinion, no penalty is required to be levied as there would be no willful attempt on the part of the assessee to evade any tax. The Shiv Ratan Education Society vs. ITO Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) has held

SH.PAWAN ANAND,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Sh. Pawan Anand, Income Tax Officer, 43, Dhamawala Bazaar, Vs. Ward 1(1)(2), 13-A, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Agqpa0214J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 1 2. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below. In this case, we noticed that an addition of Rs.10,68,000/- was made while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, being the difference between the stamp duty value