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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

SMT. SUMAN LAKHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

26 wherein it was held that, “An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasicriminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RESURGERE MINES AND MINERALS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271(l)(c) postulates imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. Hence, in our ITA No.- 1531/Del/2017. M/s Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd. considered opinion on the facts and circumstances of this case the assessee's conduct cannot be said to be contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty. Hence, we hold

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

penalty under section 271(1 )(c); in such a case it was not even necessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 5. CIT Vs S J Prasad (2008) 220 CTR 169(KER.) where Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that where a search was conducted in assessee’s premises and during search cash

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

penalty under section 271(1 )(c); in such a case it was not even necessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 5. CIT Vs S J Prasad (2008) 220 CTR 169(KER.) where Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that where a search was conducted in assessee’s premises and during search cash

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

penalty under section 271(1 )(c); in such a case it was not even necessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 5. CIT Vs S J Prasad (2008) 220 CTR 169(KER.) where Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that where a search was conducted in assessee’s premises and during search cash

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(l)(c). The appellant did not contest the assessment order passed by the AO on 28.03.2014. 7. In the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA, the AO referred to the provisions of section 271AAA. , Stating that while the provision required the assessee to offer undisclosed income in its return, substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, and also

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(l)(c). The appellant did not contest the assessment order passed by the AO on 28.03.2014. 7. In the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA, the AO referred to the provisions of section 271AAA. , Stating that while the provision required the assessee to offer undisclosed income in its return, substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, and also

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(l)(c). The appellant did not contest the assessment order passed by the AO on 28.03.2014. 7. In the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA, the AO referred to the provisions of section 271AAA. , Stating that while the provision required the assessee to offer undisclosed income in its return, substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, and also

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(l)(c). The appellant did not contest the assessment order passed by the AO on 28.03.2014. 7. In the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA, the AO referred to the provisions of section 271AAA. , Stating that while the provision required the assessee to offer undisclosed income in its return, substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, and also

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(l)(c). The appellant did not contest the assessment order passed by the AO on 28.03.2014. 7. In the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA, the AO referred to the provisions of section 271AAA. , Stating that while the provision required the assessee to offer undisclosed income in its return, substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, and also

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

26) Explanation 1 of section 271 (1 )(c) cannot be invoked in Assessee's case as rightly held by the Ld. CIT(A) vide para 6.15 at page 23-24 of the appellate order as under: "I also hold that the Explanation 1A to section 271(l)(c) as invoked by the AO was not applicable as the Appellant