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)

4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court, the appeal is accordingly dismissed." 7. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, notice was issued to the assessee dated 28.03.2013. Thereafter another notice was issued on 21.12.2020. Ld. AR submits that from the perusal of both the notices (reproduced below), it could be seen that in both notices, it was not specified whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of particulars of income

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)

u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the A.O. has not strike off the irrelevant limb and notspecified the charge for which notice was issued. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relying on plethora of Judgments, submitted that the penalty orders passed based on the defective notices cannot be sustained. Thus, sought for allowing

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)

u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the A.O. has not strike off the irrelevant limb and notspecified the charge for which notice was issued. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relying on plethora of Judgments, submitted that the penalty orders passed based on the defective notices cannot be sustained. Thus, sought for allowing

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)

u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the A.O. has not strike off the irrelevant limb and notspecified the charge for which notice was issued. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relying on plethora of Judgments, submitted that the penalty orders passed based on the defective notices cannot be sustained. Thus, sought for allowing

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

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, the case

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

u/s 271(1)(c) without proving either the concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in upholding the penalty even when appeal to the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A) for the year under

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

u/s 271(1)(c) without proving either the concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in upholding the penalty even when appeal to the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A) for the year under

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 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied minimum @100% tax thereon. This action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld CIT(A). Aggrieved the Assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Admittedly, survey operation was carried out u/s

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.

4,58,193/- found credited extra in her bank account is taken as unexplained income and added u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the total income of the F.Y. under consideration and charged for tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the LT. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment

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.

4,58,193/- found credited extra in her bank account is taken as unexplained income and added u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the total income of the F.Y. under consideration and charged for tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the LT. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment

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)

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 of the penalty order, it is observed that the AO while imposing the penalty alleged that if amount of Income over expenditure and depreciation claimed as application are reduced from gross

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), DEHRADUN vs. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, NANITAL

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Itat. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Haldwani Be Set Aside That Of The Ao Be Restored.”

u/s 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). However, this plea of the assessee was out-rightly rejected by the assessing officer on the premise that ignorance of law is not an excuse. Accordingly, penalty was imposed as under :- AY 2014-15 AY 2015-16 AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 Amount of Rs.1

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

4. Having considered rival submissions, we find that while deciding the quantum appeals in case of the respective assessees, the Tribunal, in three separate orders passed on 31.01.2023 in ITA No. 3397/DDN/2015, ITA No. 3400/Del/2015 and ITA No. 339/Del/2015 has fully deleted the additions based on which, 2 | P a g e penalties under section 271

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

4. Having considered rival submissions, we find that while deciding the quantum appeals in case of the respective assessees, the Tribunal, in three separate orders passed on 31.01.2023 in ITA No. 3397/DDN/2015, ITA No. 3400/Del/2015 and ITA No. 339/Del/2015 has fully deleted the additions based on which, 2 | P a g e penalties under section 271