ASHIMA NEB,NOIDA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-64(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

penalty proceedings should survive, the assessment proceedings should be live. Where an order of assessment and reassessment proceedings on the basis

LAXMI KANT MISHRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 35(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: the end of the relevant

reassessment was completed on 25/12/2019 making addition on account of unexplained cash deposits. The Ld.AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271F

LAXMI KANT MISHRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 35(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: the end of the relevant

reassessment was completed on 25/12/2019 making addition on account of unexplained cash deposits. The Ld.AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271F

SHSHANK VARSHNEY,CHANDAUSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5) , CHANDAUSI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4220/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Shshank Varshney, Income Tax Officer, Jyoti Seets, Brahm Bazar, Ward-2(5), Dist:-Sambhal, Vs. Chandausi. Uttar Pradesh-244412. Pan-Cmcpk9337C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Ramsha Department By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit” In Short) Arising Out Of The Order Of Assessing Officer Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 & 271F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Delayed By 592 Days Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act & Also Filed Appeal Delayed By 427 Days Against Penalty Order U/S 271F Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Admitted Both The Appeals Of The Assessee On Account Of Delay By Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeals. Shashank Varshne Vs. Ito 3. Against These Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us By Stating That The Assessee Has Not Received The Notices Issued By The Ao As Well As Cit(A) As The Notices Were Stated To Have Being Sent On The Email Address” Chinto1411988@Gmail.Com Which Was Neither Belong To Assessee Nor His Earlier Counsel. As The Notices Issued From Time To Time Were Not Received By The Assessee, The Necessary Compliance Could Not Be Made Before The Lower Authorities. Assessee Also Filed An Affidavit In Support Of The Contentions Raised For The Delay Before The Ld. Cit(A) Which Reads As Under: Shashank Varshne Vs. Ito

penalty u/s 271F was initiated in the same reassessment order with the liberty to initiate the penalty proceedings in the set aside

SHSHANK VARSHNE,CHANDAUSI vs. ITO, CHANDAUSI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4220/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Shshank Varshney, Income Tax Officer, Jyoti Seets, Brahm Bazar, Ward-2(5), Dist:-Sambhal, Vs. Chandausi. Uttar Pradesh-244412. Pan-Cmcpk9337C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Ramsha Department By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit” In Short) Arising Out Of The Order Of Assessing Officer Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 & 271F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Delayed By 592 Days Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Order U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act & Also Filed Appeal Delayed By 427 Days Against Penalty Order U/S 271F Of The Act. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Admitted Both The Appeals Of The Assessee On Account Of Delay By Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeals. Shashank Varshne Vs. Ito 3. Against These Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us By Stating That The Assessee Has Not Received The Notices Issued By The Ao As Well As Cit(A) As The Notices Were Stated To Have Being Sent On The Email Address” Chinto1411988@Gmail.Com Which Was Neither Belong To Assessee Nor His Earlier Counsel. As The Notices Issued From Time To Time Were Not Received By The Assessee, The Necessary Compliance Could Not Be Made Before The Lower Authorities. Assessee Also Filed An Affidavit In Support Of The Contentions Raised For The Delay Before The Ld. Cit(A) Which Reads As Under: Shashank Varshne Vs. Ito

penalty u/s 271F was initiated in the same reassessment order with the liberty to initiate the penalty proceedings in the set aside

MONTREAUX RESORTS PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act flowing from the re-assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Act under challenge in ITA No. 2352/Del/2024 (supra). The reassessment

MONTREAUX RESORTS PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act flowing from the re-assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Act under challenge in ITA No. 2352/Del/2024 (supra). The reassessment

ACIT CIRCLE-65(1), NEW DELHI vs. SANJAY PRATAP SINGH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

reassessment proceeding is quashed, the concealment penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on such quashed reassessment proceedings

ACIT CIRCLE-65(1), NEW DELHI vs. SANJAY PRATAP SINGH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

reassessment proceeding is quashed, the concealment penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on such quashed reassessment proceedings

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. SHONKH TECHNOLOGY LTD

penalty order. The matter is accordingly remitted back to the Tribunal which shall consider the reassessment and the penalty appeals

PRAMILA TARNEJA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

penalty order and submitted that the assessee did not disclose interest income in a return of income and when the Assessing Officer initiated the reassessment

PRAMILA TARNEJA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

penalty order and submitted that the assessee did not disclose interest income in a return of income and when the Assessing Officer initiated the reassessment

PRAMILA TARNEJA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

penalty order and submitted that the assessee did not disclose interest income in a return of income and when the Assessing Officer initiated the reassessment

RATI RAM YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 3(5), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C. N.Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

reassessment proceeding, (iii) initiation of penalty and (iv) charging of interest under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short, the ‘Act’). 3. The relevant

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

penalty proceedings following prerequisites should obtain. (i) The Assessing Officer should be satisfied that:- (a) The assessee has either concealed particulars of his income; or (b) furnished inaccurate particulars of his income; or (c) infracted both (a) and (b) above (ii) This satisfaction should be arrived at during the course of any proceedings. These could be assessment, reassessment

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

reassessment or rectification proceedings, but not penalty proceedings. (Hi) If ingredients contained in (i) and (ii) are present a notice

ITO WARD-66(4), NEW DELHI vs. VIJAY SHANKAR BAJPAI, RAJASTHAN

Accordingly, Revenue’s appeal in this case is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayita No.4657/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Shri Vijay Shankar Ward-66(4), Bajpai, New Delhi. Vs. 104, Riico Ind. Area, School Of Aeronautics Delhi Jaipur Highway, Neemrana, Rajsthan-301705. Pan-Aeppb6550D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/08/2025

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 initiated by the appellant have been held to be vitiated, void ab initio and bad in law and have been quashed. 6.1.1 Considering the factual matrix of the case, it is evident and can be inferred that in order that the penalty

ITO WARD-66(4), NEW DELHI vs. VIJAY SHANKAR BAJPAI, RAJASTHAN

Accordingly, Revenue’s appeal in this case is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayita No.4657/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Shri Vijay Shankar Ward-66(4), Bajpai, New Delhi. Vs. 104, Riico Ind. Area, School Of Aeronautics Delhi Jaipur Highway, Neemrana, Rajsthan-301705. Pan-Aeppb6550D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/08/2025

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 initiated by the appellant have been held to be vitiated, void ab initio and bad in law and have been quashed. 6.1.1 Considering the factual matrix of the case, it is evident and can be inferred that in order that the penalty