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 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

penalty notice dated 28.02.2013 issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act which is placed on record before us and find that the said notice was issued mechanically stating that assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In other words, the notice was issued for both the limbs without

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I. OVERSEAS LTD., NOIDA

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number 1

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number 1

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number 1

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number 1

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number 1

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number 1

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number 1

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

EKSHAD AHAMAD PATODI,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT(OSD), WARD-2(3)(5), KHATIMA

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Further in Page No. 2 has also mentioned as under:- “Penalty proceedings 271(1)(c) are initiated separately.” 6. After passing the assessment order, the Ld. A.O. has issued notice u/s

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

section 144 and penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. In the quantum appeal, the assessee raised following grounds : “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in condoning the delay of more than 2 years merely on ground that the erstwhile

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

HARISH CHANDRA BATRA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

5. We have also gone through the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Assessing Officer. We find that the Assessing Officer has issued the penalty order stating that, you *have concealed the particulars of your income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income.” 6. On this issue, we are guided

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

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 133A of the Act in the hands of the partnership firm and Mohd. Shariq. It is important