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)

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 25/03/2022, in which the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had filed his return of income for Asst. Year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.25,38,700/- and subsequent to assessment initiated u/s 153A r.w.sec 143(3), the total income was assessed to tax at Rs.44,57,610/-. Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately”. Manifest as it is, the AO has most casually initiated the penalty proceedings without choosing to specify any limb. Clearly, the act of the AO is vitiated by the non application of mind about the nature of default and, in consequence, vitiates the ‘satisfaction’ contemplated under section 271(1

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately”. Manifest as it is, the AO has most casually initiated the penalty proceedings without choosing to specify any limb. Clearly, the act of the AO is vitiated by the non application of mind about the nature of default and, in consequence, vitiates the ‘satisfaction’ contemplated under section 271(1

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately”. Manifest as it is, the AO has most casually initiated the penalty proceedings without choosing to specify any limb. Clearly, the act of the AO is vitiated by the non application of mind about the nature of default and, in consequence, vitiates the ‘satisfaction’ contemplated under section 271(1

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately”. Manifest as it is, the AO has most casually initiated the penalty proceedings without choosing to specify any limb. Clearly, the act of the AO is vitiated by the non application of mind about the nature of default and, in consequence, vitiates the ‘satisfaction’ contemplated under section 271(1

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately”. Manifest as it is, the AO has most casually initiated the penalty proceedings without choosing to specify any limb. Clearly, the act of the AO is vitiated by the non application of mind about the nature of default and, in consequence, vitiates the ‘satisfaction’ contemplated under section 271(1

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately”. Manifest as it is, the AO has most casually initiated the penalty proceedings without choosing to specify any limb. Clearly, the act of the AO is vitiated by the non application of mind about the nature of default and, in consequence, vitiates the ‘satisfaction’ contemplated under section 271(1

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately”. Manifest as it is, the AO has most casually initiated the penalty proceedings without choosing to specify any limb. Clearly, the act of the AO is vitiated by the non application of mind about the nature of default and, in consequence, vitiates the ‘satisfaction’ contemplated under section 271(1

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately”. Manifest as it is, the AO has most casually initiated the penalty proceedings without choosing to specify any limb. Clearly, the act of the AO is vitiated by the non application of mind about the nature of default and, in consequence, vitiates the ‘satisfaction’ contemplated under section 271(1

M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, these four appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

penalty amounting to Rs.3,41,59,950/- was levied under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid quantum additions of Rs.6,36,50,000/- and Rs.33,50,000/-. The assessee filed appeals against aforesaid order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act, vide the appeal numbers 10015/19- 20 and 10067/19-20. Vide aforesaid appeal

M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, these four appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

penalty amounting to Rs.3,41,59,950/- was levied under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid quantum additions of Rs.6,36,50,000/- and Rs.33,50,000/-. The assessee filed appeals against aforesaid order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act, vide the appeal numbers 10015/19- 20 and 10067/19-20. Vide aforesaid appeal