M/S KUMAON MANDAL VIKASH NIGAM LTD.,NANITAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, NANITAL

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

2 ) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in. holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is had in law and. invalid in spite the amendment of Section 271(1 B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated

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

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in. holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is had in law and. invalid in spite the amendment of Section 271(1 B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated

HOTEL PRESIDENT,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

2. Brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to the assessment orders for Assessment Years 2012-13, and 2013-14 & 2010-11 passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Section147 of the Act, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated against the Assessee and orders of penalty have been passed on 17/03/2022 for all the above three

HOTEL PRESIDENT,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

2. Brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to the assessment orders for Assessment Years 2012-13, and 2013-14 & 2010-11 passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Section147 of the Act, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated against the Assessee and orders of penalty have been passed on 17/03/2022 for all the above three

HOTEL PRESIDENT,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

2. Brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to the assessment orders for Assessment Years 2012-13, and 2013-14 & 2010-11 passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Section147 of the Act, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated against the Assessee and orders of penalty have been passed on 17/03/2022 for all the above three

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty order,\nboth dated 07.09.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for\n Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively.\nPage | 1\n2. As these three appeals are having the issues which are inter-\nlinked, inter-connected and this fact has been admitted by both the\nparties during the course of hearing before us, therefore, all three\nappeals

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

2) Bombay High Court: Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs ACIT Section 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s

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

2) Bombay High Court: Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs ACIT Section 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied at an addition which has been made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act on a deeming fiction. 3. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. The Assessee filed original return of income on 29.11.2014 for AY 2014-15 declaring total income

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]

penalty order, both dated 07.09.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. ITA Nos.64, 78 & 79/DDN/2024 2. As these three appeals are having the issues which are inter- linked, inter-connected and this fact has been admitted by both the parties during the course of hearing before us, therefore, all three

BEER SINGH BISHT,PAURI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4)(3), KOTHDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the NFAC was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. AY: 2014-15 3. We have heard the rival submissions

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty order,\nboth dated 07.09.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for\n Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively.\nPage | 1\nITA Nos.64, 78 & 79/DDN/2024\n2. As these three appeals are having the issues which are inter-\nlinked, inter-connected and this fact has been admitted by both the\nparties during the course of hearing before

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

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Section 271(1)(C)\nof the Act in the penalty notice dated 28/12/2018, therefore, the\ninitiation of penalty is erroneous.\n4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that\nthe subject penalty proceedings have been initiated pursuant to the\npenalty notice dated 02/12/2024, wherein specific limb of penalty has\nbeen mentioned. The Ld. Department's Representative taken us through\nthe

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.

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of particulars of income.” 4.3 Aggrieved with both assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed both appeals on the reasoning that the assessee did not pursue these appeals properly and did not controvert the finding

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.

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of particulars of income.” 4.3 Aggrieved with both assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed both appeals on the reasoning that the assessee did not pursue these appeals properly and did not controvert the finding

CHOTE LAL VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Chote Lal Verma, Post Office Iip, Versus Dcit, Central Circle, Haridwar Road, Mokhampur, Dehradun Dehradun. Pan: Adtpv8331M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Puran Singh Verma, Post Office Versus Dcit, Central Circle, Iip, Chemical Sciences Division, Dehradun Mokhampur, Dehradun. Pan: Aaipv5562C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Versus Dcit, Central Circle, Aditya Verma, Post Office Iip, Haridwar Road, Mokhampur, Dehradun Dehradun. Pan: Adzpv9884H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Arora, C.A. Revenue By : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit/Dr

2 | P a g e penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were imposed. That being the admitted position emerging on record, the penalties imposed u/s

PURAN SINGH VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Chote Lal Verma, Post Office Iip, Versus Dcit, Central Circle, Haridwar Road, Mokhampur, Dehradun Dehradun. Pan: Adtpv8331M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Puran Singh Verma, Post Office Versus Dcit, Central Circle, Iip, Chemical Sciences Division, Dehradun Mokhampur, Dehradun. Pan: Aaipv5562C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Versus Dcit, Central Circle, Aditya Verma, Post Office Iip, Haridwar Road, Mokhampur, Dehradun Dehradun. Pan: Adzpv9884H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Arora, C.A. Revenue By : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit/Dr

2 | P a g e penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were imposed. That being the admitted position emerging on record, the penalties imposed u/s

ADITYA VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Chote Lal Verma, Post Office Iip, Versus Dcit, Central Circle, Haridwar Road, Mokhampur, Dehradun Dehradun. Pan: Adtpv8331M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Puran Singh Verma, Post Office Versus Dcit, Central Circle, Iip, Chemical Sciences Division, Dehradun Mokhampur, Dehradun. Pan: Aaipv5562C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Versus Dcit, Central Circle, Aditya Verma, Post Office Iip, Haridwar Road, Mokhampur, Dehradun Dehradun. Pan: Adzpv9884H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Arora, C.A. Revenue By : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit/Dr

2 | P a g e penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were imposed. That being the admitted position emerging on record, the penalties imposed u/s