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.

penalty (30% of the undisclosed income. Against this charge the assessee should have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. From going through the above three notices issued to the assessee on 22.03.2016, 03.06.2016 and 16.09.2016, we find that there is no mention about various conditions provided u/s 271

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.

penalty (30% of the undisclosed income. Against this charge the assessee should have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. From going through the above three notices issued to the assessee on 22.03.2016, 03.06.2016 and 16.09.2016, we find that there is no mention about various conditions provided u/s 271

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.

penalty (30% of the undisclosed income. Against this charge the assessee should have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. From going through the above three notices issued to the assessee on 22.03.2016, 03.06.2016 and 16.09.2016, we find that there is no mention about various conditions provided u/s 271

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

Income Tax has to be initiated for which notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53

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

Income Tax has to be initiated for which notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53

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

Income Tax has to be initiated for which notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53

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

Income Tax has to be initiated for which notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53

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

Income Tax has to be initiated for which notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53

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

Income Tax has to be initiated for which notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53

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

Income Tax has to be initiated for which notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53

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

Income Tax has to be initiated for which notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53

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

penalty 30% of the undisclosed income. Against this charge the assessee should have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” From going through the above three notices issued to the assessee on 22.03.2016, 03.06.2016 and 16.09.2016, we find that there is no mention about various conditions provided u/s 271

SHAILENDRA ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Shailendra, Vs Ito, C/O-Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Ward-2(3), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Cavps9753D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2023

undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 147/143(3) on a total income of Rs.42,75,350/-. Since the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 filed her return of income declaring the same income which was originally returned and during the course of assessment proceedings had surrendered the income of Rs.2,47,395/-, the Assessing Officer

SUSHIL BANSAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) of I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.52,80,000/- (@60% of the undisclosed income). This order has been passed with the prior approval of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-05, New Delhi vide letter No Addl.CIT/CR-5/2021 -22/1331 dated 24.03.2022.” 21. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully

SUSHIL BANSAL ,DELHI vs. ACIT , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) of I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.52,80,000/- (@60% of the undisclosed income). This order has been passed with the prior approval of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-05, New Delhi vide letter No Addl.CIT/CR-5/2021 -22/1331 dated 24.03.2022.” 21. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully

LANDCRAFT DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of\nincome. Both these conditions are absolutely not relevant for\ninitiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act. Moreover, the\nprovisions of section 271AAB (2) of the Act very clearly state that no\npenalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act could be levied on the assessee in\nrespect of undisclosed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, NEW DELHI vs. MOTHERS PRIDE EDUCATION PERSONNA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2012-13

271 AAA of Income 2 Tax Act, 1961. It is a matter on record that there is no undisclosed and no evidence in any form was found during the course of search. Hence order passed under section 271AAA is bad. 3. Without prejudice to our main contention that penalty u/s

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income