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

section 271(1)(c ) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Ratio of the full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Goa) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee's case as the notice u/s. 274 r.w.s

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)

3. The Ld. Counsel for the vehemently contended that the orders of penalty have been passed based on the defective notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271

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)

3. The Ld. Counsel for the vehemently contended that the orders of penalty have been passed based on the defective notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271

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)

3. The Ld. Counsel for the vehemently contended that the orders of penalty have been passed based on the defective notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a retired teacher from Education Department of Uttarakhand. Based on the AIR information

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

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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 and also sustained certain\naddition. Thereafter, notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were issued on\n28/12/2018 and on 02/02/2018. An order of penalty came

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

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

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

Section 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, order is bad in law. Assessee must be informed of the ground of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 3

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

Section 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, order is bad in law. Assessee must be informed of the ground of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. 3

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

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)

3. Thereafter, the AO imposed the penalty u/s 270A of Rs.15,44,310/- being 200% of the tax sought to be evaded which penalty stood confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act were imposed. That being the admitted position emerging on record, the penalties imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the aforesaid assessees cannot survive. Accordingly, penalties imposed in all these appeals are deleted. 5. In the result, appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/06/2023

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act were imposed. That being the admitted position emerging on record, the penalties imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the aforesaid assessees cannot survive. Accordingly, penalties imposed in all these appeals are deleted. 5. In the result, appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/06/2023

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act were imposed. That being the admitted position emerging on record, the penalties imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the aforesaid assessees cannot survive. Accordingly, penalties imposed in all these appeals are deleted. 5. In the result, appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/06/2023

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.

3. Grounds raised in both appeals are almost similar challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessments and 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