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

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

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

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

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

271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person— (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of [such income, or 6 I.T.A.No.2412/Del/2023 Explanation 1.—Where in respect of any facts material

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

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

139(1) or by such notice. * have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. * have concealed the particulars of such income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.” 6.1 After perusing the said notice

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

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

271,11,88,127 5,43,930 Reasons for difference :- 13 1. Turnover that was mistakenly shown less in the month of May has been shown more the same amount in the month of October in order to nullify the impact. 2. Turnover mistakenly shown more by Rs. 5,43,930/- in the month of March ….. . 12. It is thus

SHOURYA TOWERS PVT LTD vs. DCIT

139(1) did 2012:DHC:7381-DB ITA 170/2012 Page 6 not include any such income, neither did the assessee file the returns after notice u/s 153A. Thus, it is not incorrect on the part of the Revenue to levy penalty on the assessee. It was also contended that immunity under Explanation 5 of Section 271

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)

u/s. 271(1)(c) so issued by CIT(A) is also not in accordance with law, hence, the same quashed. To support our aforesaid view, we draw our support from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del. HC) wherein, it has been observed as under

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

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(1

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of section 148, and a notice under sub- section (2) of section 143 has been issued by the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be; or (b) has not furnished his return of income

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