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)

5. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244] where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C. 6. Khandelwal Steel And Tube

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

5.\nYou are hereby requested to appear before me at..\n11.A.M./P.M.on. 15/07/2009.\nand show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorised\nrepresentative you may show

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 68 particularly when onus which lied upon the assessee in penalty proceedings stood duly discharged accordingly, imposition of penalty is wholly erroneous, unjustified and bad in law. [Tax effect Rs.1,24,89,274/-] 4. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. [Tax effect 1,24,89,274/-] Brief facts

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

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

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

5. Trimurti Engineering Works Vs ITO T20121 25 taxmann.com 363 (Delhi)/[2012] 138 ITD 189 (Delhi)/[2012] 150 TTJ 195 (Delhi) where Hon’ble ITAT Delhi held that it was apparent from combined reading of notice and assessment order that impugned notice had been issued in respect of concealment of particulars of income. Relevant part of the order is reproduced

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

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)

5. Before we proceed further, the decisions relied upon by the Ld DR are to be considered. In the case of Principal CIT vs Sandeep Chandak & Others [TS-6389- HC-20 17(Allahabad)-O] (supra) the issue before the Hon 'ble High Court was the defect in the notice issued under section 271AAB on account mentioning wrong provision

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

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

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

5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding, the penalty order which is bad in law, unjustified, illegal, void ab-initio. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding

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

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

5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the assessment order and while levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the order passed on 29.06.2022 invoking the Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel

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