DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

section 54F of the Act? deduction u/s. 54F cannot be included in ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income’. (v) Whether the Tribunal can In view of the aforesaid facts and change the limb of penalty to circumstances of the case and in “concealment of income”, when the the background of the aforesaid AO has invoked the limb of “furnishing discussions

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 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. 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

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

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

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

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

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

penalty under section 271(1)(c). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/AO has failed to appreciate that the issue involved in Appellant’s case is purely a legal issue to be decided on interpretation of the provisions of the Act and merely because Ld. AO adopts a view

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

43,691/- against the returned income of Rs. 1,53,000/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer, inter alia, made following addition to the returned income of the assessee: (i) Addition of Rs. 1,01,184/- on account of excessive and unverified expenses ; (ii) Addition of Rs. 47,980/- on account of income from other sources, not declared

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. AMANDEEP SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

Section 271AAA of the Act, i.e., assessee was not able to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. 10. In view of the aforesaid position, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, without any order as to costs.” 36. Those facts are distinguishable from the facts in present case

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARMENDER SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

Section 271AAA of the Act, i.e., assessee was not able to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. 10. In view of the aforesaid position, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, without any order as to costs.” 36. Those facts are distinguishable from the facts in present case

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S SUCON INDIA LTD, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2009-10

1,59,42,600/- for the year and increased the carry forward loss to Rs. 27,63,30,230/- against the claim of Rs. 25,94,45,470/-. In penalty order the assessing officer had reiterated the facts mentioned in assessment order. It is stated therein that by claiming set off, the assessee had tried to avoid due taxes

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.]” 37. We have gone through the above provisions, so as to look into whether there was any reasonable cause

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.]” 37. We have gone through the above provisions, so as to look into whether there was any reasonable cause

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.]” 37. We have gone through the above provisions, so as to look into whether there was any reasonable cause

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.]” 37. We have gone through the above provisions, so as to look into whether there was any reasonable cause