SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1) (c) observing that the assessee had declared the additional income only because of initiation of search proceedings. We observed that the Assessing Officer has found the credit and debit entries in the bank statement submitted by the assessee only during the assessment proceedings, therefore, there is no link to the material found during the search. Therefore

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1) (c) observing that the assessee had declared the additional income only because of initiation of search proceedings. We observed that the Assessing Officer has found the credit and debit entries in the bank statement submitted by the assessee only during the assessment proceedings, therefore, there is no link to the material found during the search. Therefore

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1) (c) observing that the assessee had declared the additional income only because of initiation of search proceedings. We observed that the Assessing Officer has found the credit and debit entries in the bank statement submitted by the assessee only during the assessment proceedings, therefore, there is no link to the material found during the search. Therefore

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

271 AAB (1A) of the Act penalty is leviable on the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the notice initiating penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is vague and the assessee was not made aware of the actual charge on which the penalty proceedings will be initiated on the assessee. The various judicial precedents have held that

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

271 AAB (1A) of the Act penalty is leviable on the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the notice initiating penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is vague and the assessee was not made aware of the actual charge on which the penalty proceedings will be initiated on the assessee. The various judicial precedents have held that

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

271 AAB (1A) of the Act penalty is leviable on the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the notice initiating penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is vague and the assessee was not made aware of the actual charge on which the penalty proceedings will be initiated on the assessee. The various judicial precedents have held that

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act specifying the particular charge was issued to the assessee. A notice dated 08.03.2013 has been placed on record by the assessee at page 39 of the Paper Book. For the sake of clarity, the same is reproduced herein below:- Date-08.03.2013 To, Sh. George Kutty C/o Oasis Tours Pvt. Ltd. C-40, Middle

YOGENDER MOHAN RUSTAGI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Yogender Mohan Rustagi Vs Acit Central Circle -28 548/549 Katra Ishwar Bhawan Delhi Khari Baoli Delhi-110006 Pan No. Agupr9629J (Appellant) (Respondent)

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, - (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the facts and 10 circumstances of the case. This reference is accordingly answered in the affirmative holding that the Tribunal was justified in doing so." xi) ITA No. 393/2015 Pr CIT vs. Prashant Shrivastava "11. It is not the Revenue's case that

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accoutant Member A.Yr. : 2013-14 Sanjeev Kumar, Vs. Acit, Cc-14, New Delhi 77-78, Rama Royal Residency, Milk Mohsangarh, Siyana Road, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh-203001 (Pan: Abbpk0132H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

139 abates and becomes non-est, and, thus, ‘concealment’ has to be seen with reference to revised return filed by assessee –Held, yes, Whether in order for Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) to apply, it is necessary that there must be certain assets found in possession of assessee during search, and assessee must claim that such assets have

SHRING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Hon’Blea.Y. : 2011-12

u/s. 271 read with Section 274 of the I. T. Act, 1961 was ambiguous and vague in as much as it is stated both concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. For the sake of reference, the copy of Notice dated 11.3.2014 for initiation of penalty proceedings was filed at Paper Book Page no. 14 and further

SOM NATH VIRMANI AND SONS HUF,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1), GURGAON, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Som Nath Virmani & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sons Huf, Ward-5(1), Flat No. 303, Soverign 1, Gurgaon Vatika City, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanhs1927F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of the assessee, if the self-assessment tax paid prior to notice issued u/s 148 is taken into consideration then there is no amount remains as tax sought to be evaded and consequently, no penalty is leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Authorized

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

139(5) and consequent to notice under section 142(1), the assessment shall be made under section 144 and would be termed as best judgment assessment. 43 The reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Segu Buchiah Setty [1970] 77 ITR 539 [23-04- 1970] is very pertinent. And the relevant

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

139(5) and consequent to notice under section 142(1), the assessment shall be made under section 144 and would be termed as best judgment assessment. 43 The reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Segu Buchiah Setty [1970] 77 ITR 539 [23-04- 1970] is very pertinent. And the relevant

MUKESH KHURANA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

271 AAB (1A) of the Act penalty is leviable on the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the notice initiating penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is vague and the assessee was not made aware of the actual charge on which the penalty proceedings will be initiated on the assessee. The various judicial precedents have held that

MANOJ MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2412/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Manoj Mittal, Dcit H-1, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-8, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaipm7274J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

139 for all the years and disclosed the particulars of shareholding pattern, advances taken and given by the assessee company/individual in return itself. The accumulated profit also has been disclosed. Thereafter assessee filed return u/s 153A of the IT Act wherein also all the detailed facts and figures were disclosed in the return. The assessee's case is auditable

LANDCRAFT DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act. Further, we\nfind that the provisions of section 271AAB of the Act contains\nvarious types of levy of penalty in the following manner:-\n(i) 271AAB (1)(a)-10% of undisclosed income would be the penalty.\n(ii) 271AAB (1)(b)- 20% of undisclosed income would be the penalty.\n(iii) 271AAB

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub- section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 115WE or sub- section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry