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)

2. Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Smt Kiran Devi Vs ACIT [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) held that where certain income was disclosed in return filed in response to notice under section 153C following search, which income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of income attracting penalty under section 271

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or whether for under reporting or misreporting of income . Therefore, it is submitted that in the absence of specific charge in the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the said notice

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or whether for under reporting or misreporting of income . Therefore, it is submitted that in the absence of specific charge in the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the said notice

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or whether for under reporting or misreporting of income . Therefore, it is submitted that in the absence of specific charge in the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the said notice

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or whether for under reporting or misreporting of income . Therefore, it is submitted that in the absence of specific charge in the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the said notice

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or whether for under reporting or misreporting of income . Therefore, it is submitted that in the absence of specific charge in the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the said notice

SOREGAM SA,BELGIUM vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONTAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or whether for under reporting or misreporting of income . Therefore, it is submitted that in the absence of specific charge in the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the said notice

SOREGAM SA ,BELGIUM vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or whether for under reporting or misreporting of income . Therefore, it is submitted that in the absence of specific charge in the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the said notice

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

271 (1) (c) of the Act for the above\nadditions were successfully represented by the same previous counsel\nbefore CIT (Appeals). Departmental appeals against the deletion of penalties\nwere dismissed.\n7. Appeals against additions u/s 2 (22) (e) for the three years 2005-06 to 2007-\n08 were also being represented till last year by the same previous counsel.It\nwas

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

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 30.09.2010 declaring income of Rs.47,28,153/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act making an addition of Rs.18,42,000/- on account of loan received by the assessee which

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)

2 Rs. 92,00,000/- as per assessment order and imposed penalty u/s. 271AAB on this sum which was deleted by the CIT(A). It is also noted the AO initiated penalty u/s. 271AAB in respect of the surrendered amount of Rs. 92,00,000/- (Rs. 41,80,000/- + Rs. 50,20,000). It is further observed from the copy

ANIL KUMAR LAKHINA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5405/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Anil Kumar Lakhina Acit 203, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Vs. Circle 30(1), Pan No.Aazpl4961G Room No.1302, 13Th Floor, Civic Centre, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that penalty order is invalid and bad in law for the reason that the 1 penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In other words, it is submitted that the Ld. Counsel submits that

KARNAL CO-OP SUGAR MILLS LTD,KARNAL vs. ACIT CIRCLE, KARNAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwalआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6334/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Karnal Co-Op Sugar Mills Ltd. Acit, Meerut Road, Karnal, Vs. Circle, Haryana. Ff, Ayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Aaffk9357F Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that penalty order is invalid and bad in law for the reason that the 1 penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In other words, it is submitted that the Ld. Counsel submits that

ARUN DWIVEDI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6123/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Arun Dwivedi, Acit, B-12, Vivekanand Puri, Vs. Circle-9(2), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi. Pan No.Aalpd4998F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that penalty order is invalid and bad in law for the reason that the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In other words, it is submitted that the Ld. Counsel submits that

SUDESH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2013-14 Sudesh Gupta, Vs. Acit, Circle 5(1), B-15, Kalindi Colony, Opp. Room No. G-15-B, C.R. Maharani Bagh, Building, New Delhi – 2 New Delhi (Pan: Aahpg5645G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

2,34,00,000/- to BTL. Accordingly, AO made the addition of Rs. 1,29,53,126/- in the hands of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the penalty order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that AO has initiated the penalty proceedings

SHOURYA TOWERS PVT LTD vs. DCIT

u/s 153A for the reason that the assessee has used dilatory tactics in payment of tax and interest. Thus, no immunity accrues on the assessee from the liability. It is highlighted that the assessee in fact did not file any return, and only chose to revise the return originally filed, only on 14-12-2007, after declaring that its original

M/S. INDIA EXPOSITION MART LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, is initiated separately.”\n\n(2.3) The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in which the following grounds\nof appeal were raised:\n\n\"1. The Learned DCIT erred in law by reopening assessment u/s 147 of\nIncome Tax on the basis of change in opinion.\n2. The Learned

DCIT, DELHI vs. ASTER TRADELINKS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

2. Whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1. T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.71,51,527/- without appreciating that assessment in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration was completed on 21.03.2024 within the limitation as per the provisions of section 153