MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 12.09.2022 of AY 2014-15 are dismissed as not maintainable as per facts available on record on merits as well without prejudice Page 12 of 25 MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH ITA No. 790&791/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2014-15 to their dismissal in limine, consequent to its rejection involving inordinate delay in filing the instant two appeals

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

13 of 17 M/s. Rashtriya Takniki Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan ITA No. 509/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 consultant. We also do not find any substance in the submissions made by Dr. Pal; on the contrary, in our considered opinion, we find that section 271(1)(c) of the Act has specifically stated about the concealment of the particulars of income

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

13 of 17 M/s. Rashtriya Takniki Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan ITA No. 509/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 consultant. We also do not find any substance in the submissions made by Dr. Pal; on the contrary, in our considered opinion, we find that section 271(1)(c) of the Act has specifically stated about the concealment of the particulars of income

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

13. Ld. AR submitted that although the case of Kulwant Singh Bhatia (supra) decided by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court relates to section 271(1)(c) 11 Gaurav Ajmera ITA No. 808/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 but the important point laid out therein is such that the penalty proceeding is not sustainable in absence of specific charge in notice. Therefore

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

penalty imposed by AO u/s 271(1)(c). Learned Representatives agree that the underlying facts are identical in all three cases, therefore we have heard these appeals analogously and are going to dispose of by this common order for the sake of clarity, convenience and brevity. Both sides argued the facts of first appeal being ITA No. 772/Ind/2024

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Therefore, the penalty-order of AY 2012-13 is unsustainable for this very reason also that there is no satisfaction recorded by AO in assessment-order qua any default having been committed by assessee attracting penalty proceedings of section 271(1)(c). In fact

M/S TRUBA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,BHOPAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

penalty leviable under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the principle is applicable with reference to the other provisions also which are penal in nature. Cancellation of registration deprives the assessee of the various benefits which otherwise accrue and hence the provisions are to be considered as in the nature of punishment

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said penalty order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O.” 2.15 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O” preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by “impugned order dated 28.06.2024” reduced the penalty amount u/s 271(1)(c

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said penalty order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O.” 2.15 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O” preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by “impugned order dated 28.06.2024” reduced the penalty amount u/s 271(1)(c

PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said penalty order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O.” 2.15 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O” preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by “impugned order dated 28.06.2024” reduced the penalty amount u/s 271(1)(c

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said penalty order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O.” 2.15 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O” preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by “impugned order dated 28.06.2024” reduced the penalty amount u/s 271(1)(c

PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED,MHOW vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15 Prakash Asphalting & Toll Acit Central Circle -1 Highways (India) Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabcp0398N Assessee By Shri Anup Garg & Vikas Guru, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2025

13, reads as follows: XXXX 9.1 The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty notice issued u/s 271AAB of the Act is not, in any manner, depicting the charge against the assessee as to under which clause, i.e., (a), (b) or (c) of Section 271AAB (1) or clause (a), or (b) of 271AAB(1A) of the Act, penalty

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

SWAN PETRCHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Swan Petrochemicals Dcit (Central), Pvt.Ltd, Indore Unit No.308 Acme Plaza, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Vs. Andheri Kurlka, Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr9592C Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024 O R D E R

13,80,000/-, That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the penalty levied is wrong, bad in law and prayed to be deleted. 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) stating that the addition was made by the AO in the assessment order and that

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

13,698/-. The minimum and maximum penalty as per law came to Rs. 99,56,492/- and 2,98,69,476/-; the AO therefore imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. vide order dated 28.06.2019. The AO’s order is re-produced below for an immediate reference: “3. During assessment proceeding the AO has disallowed the depreciation

SMT. KAVITA SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO-3(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Income-Tax Officer, 112,Jairampur Colony, 3(4), बनाम/ Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan : Arcps6793D Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

13,94,700/-. The AO issued notice u/s 148 on 31st March, 2018. In reply, the assessee filed her return of income declaring total income of Rs. 12,00,400/- from long term capital gain interest and other sources. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and levied a penalty equivalent

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning