VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even if no additions are made to the income of the Assessee under Section 153A, it does not absolve them from liability under Sections 27ID and 271E if they are found to have contravened the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T. As such, the penalties prescribed under Sections 27ID and 27IE serve a distinct

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even if no additions are made to the income of the Assessee under Section 153A, it does not absolve them from liability under Sections 27ID and 271E if they are found to have contravened the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T. As such, the penalties prescribed under Sections 27ID and 27IE serve a distinct

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL ,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even if no additions are made to the income of the Assessee under Section 153A, it does not absolve them from liability under Sections 27ID and 271E if they are found to have contravened the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T. As such, the penalties prescribed under Sections 27ID and 27IE serve a distinct

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even if no additions are made to the income of the Assessee under Section 153A, it does not absolve them from liability under Sections 27ID and 271E if they are found to have contravened the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T. As such, the penalties prescribed under Sections 27ID and 27IE serve a distinct

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even if no additions are made to the income of the Assessee under Section 153A, it does not absolve them from liability under Sections 27ID and 271E if they are found to have contravened the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T. As such, the penalties prescribed under Sections 27ID and 27IE serve a distinct

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even if no additions are made to the income of the Assessee under Section 153A, it does not absolve them from liability under Sections 27ID and 271E if they are found to have contravened the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T. As such, the penalties prescribed under Sections 27ID and 27IE serve a distinct

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even if no additions are made to the income of the Assessee under Section 153A, it does not absolve them from liability under Sections 27ID and 271E if they are found to have contravened the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T. As such, the penalties prescribed under Sections 27ID and 27IE serve a distinct

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES CO. P.LTD,GURUGRAM vs. JCIT, RANGE-74, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the stay application is dismissed as

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3018/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Jcit Vs. Co. P. Ltd., Range-74, Unit No. 303-304, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Baani Address One, Golf Course Road, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No. Aaach3005M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Stay Appl. No.413/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Jcit Co. P. Ltd., Vs. Range-74, Unit No. 303-304, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Baani Address One, Golf Course Road, Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No. Aaach3005M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 275 of the Act. He further referred to several case laws in this regard. The proposition canvassed by the learned AR summarized as under: “Proposition: 1) Penalty proceedings have been initiated belatedly after reasonable period of 4/6 years a) The limitation for reassessment

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 DELHI, DELHI vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

275(1)(a) directs that no order\nimposing a penalty will be passed where the relevant assessment order is\nthe subject matter of an appeal before the appropriate First Appellate\nAuthority or even the Second Appellate Authority. In this section an\nextended time period is provided which needed to be counted from the\ndate of receipt of First or Second

M/s JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result the appeal is allowed and

reassessment proceedings and the consequent order passed by the Assessing Officer were bad in law. The Assessing Officer‟s jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act is predicated on the reasons which form the basis for initiation of re-assessment proceedings. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that

KEWAL KOHLI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-28, , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

275/-. Details were analyzed as under: Financial Quantity (in Kg) Amount (Rs.) Year 2007-08 30680.9 7547391 2009-10 725668.66 123481889.2 618476.29 252203800.7 2010-11 1147894.995 367002898.1 .2011-12 2012-13 7845124.987 2130780139 2013-14 16337045.38 5369031536 2014-15 491774.52 209336621 Total 27196665.73 8459384275 5. Shri Himanshu Kohli, son of the assessee, was asked to provide party-wise and metal

KEWAL KOHLI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-28, , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

275/-. Details were analyzed as under: Financial Quantity (in Kg) Amount (Rs.) Year 2007-08 30680.9 7547391 2009-10 725668.66 123481889.2 618476.29 252203800.7 2010-11 1147894.995 367002898.1 .2011-12 2012-13 7845124.987 2130780139 2013-14 16337045.38 5369031536 2014-15 491774.52 209336621 Total 27196665.73 8459384275 5. Shri Himanshu Kohli, son of the assessee, was asked to provide party-wise and metal

KEWAL KOHLI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-28, , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

275/-. Details were analyzed as under: Financial Quantity (in Kg) Amount (Rs.) Year 2007-08 30680.9 7547391 2009-10 725668.66 123481889.2 618476.29 252203800.7 2010-11 1147894.995 367002898.1 .2011-12 2012-13 7845124.987 2130780139 2013-14 16337045.38 5369031536 2014-15 491774.52 209336621 Total 27196665.73 8459384275 5. Shri Himanshu Kohli, son of the assessee, was asked to provide party-wise and metal

YOGENDER MOHAN RUSTAGI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Yogender Mohan Rustagi Vs Acit Central Circle -28 548/549 Katra Ishwar Bhawan Delhi Khari Baoli Delhi-110006 Pan No. Agupr9629J (Appellant) (Respondent)

275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee opportunity of hearing. Opportunity that is to be given to the assessee should be a meaningful one and not a farce. Notice

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V vs. ORIENT CRAFT LTD

Section 147. 10. A constitution bench of the Supreme Court in A.N. Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO (1958) 34 ITR 275, speaking through S.K. Das, J held that an assessment cannot be reopened on the basis of a mere guess, gossip or rumour. This was in the context of the pre-1948 law relating to reassessment

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

reassessment.” 3.7. We further place our reliance on the various court decision on the identical matters are mentioned hereunder: 1. ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [32 taxmann.com 162](Hon'ble Bombay High court), 2. Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd., v. ACIT [74 taxmann.com 239], (Hon’ble Kerala High Court) 3. CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. [370 ITR 87] (Hon’ble Madras

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

reassessment.” 3.7. We further place our reliance on the various court decision on the identical matters are mentioned hereunder: 1. ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [32 taxmann.com 162](Hon'ble Bombay High court), 2. Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd., v. ACIT [74 taxmann.com 239], (Hon’ble Kerala High Court) 3. CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. [370 ITR 87] (Hon’ble Madras

ATAR SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 70 (1)-DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order dated\n26/03/2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B as unsustainable in the eyes of\nlaw.\n\n(4). That on facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the both the\nlower erred in making/confirming the addition of Rs.15,90,000/- u/s.56(2) (vii)\nclause (b) without considering the fact that provisions of the section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

reassessment shall not be made until there has been service. The requirement of issue of notice is satisfied when a notice is actually issued. In this case, admittedly, the notice was issued within the prescribed period of limitation as March 31, 1970, was the last day of that period. Service under the new Act is not a condition precedent