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

Appeal is allowed

u/s 271AAB by mentioning\nwrong charge of section 271(1)(c) is not legal and cannot be sustained in the\neyes of law. Being so, we quash the penalty imposed by AO. The assessee\nsucceeds in this appeal.\n\n21.\nAs the assessee has already succeeded in this appeal, other contentions\nraised by Ld. AR are not required

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

153A for furnishing of return of income expires, as the case may be; (b) “Specified previous year” means the previous year- (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

153A for furnishing of return of income expires, as the case may be; (b) “Specified previous year” means the previous year- (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

153A for furnishing of return of income expires, as the case may be; (b) “Specified previous year” means the previous year- (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

153A for furnishing of return of income expires, as the case may be; (b) “Specified previous year” means the previous year- (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

HARMINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITANos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act which shows that proper representation was there before the assessing officer by the assessees and assessee(s) participated in the assessment proceedings to the satisfaction of Ld. Assessing Officer. In these facts where the assessment orders have not been framed ex- parte u/s 144 of the Act but have been framed u/s

HARMINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITANos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act which shows that proper representation was there before the assessing officer by the assessees and assessee(s) participated in the assessment proceedings to the satisfaction of Ld. Assessing Officer. In these facts where the assessment orders have not been framed ex- parte u/s 144 of the Act but have been framed u/s

HARMINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITANos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act which shows that proper representation was there before the assessing officer by the assessees and assessee(s) participated in the assessment proceedings to the satisfaction of Ld. Assessing Officer. In these facts where the assessment orders have not been framed ex- parte u/s 144 of the Act but have been framed u/s

HARMINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITANos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act which shows that proper representation was there before the assessing officer by the assessees and assessee(s) participated in the assessment proceedings to the satisfaction of Ld. Assessing Officer. In these facts where the assessment orders have not been framed ex- parte u/s 144 of the Act but have been framed u/s

HARMINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITANos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act which shows that proper representation was there before the assessing officer by the assessees and assessee(s) participated in the assessment proceedings to the satisfaction of Ld. Assessing Officer. In these facts where the assessment orders have not been framed ex- parte u/s 144 of the Act but have been framed u/s

HARMINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITANos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act which shows that proper representation was there before the assessing officer by the assessees and assessee(s) participated in the assessment proceedings to the satisfaction of Ld. Assessing Officer. In these facts where the assessment orders have not been framed ex- parte u/s 144 of the Act but have been framed u/s

SHRI USMAN KHAN,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

B. Whether the Ld. AO was justified in issuing notices u/s 271AAA as well as 271(1)(c ) and that too without specifying any exact charge therein and this also proves that the Ld. AO was not sure about the exact charge under which he sought to impose penalty? 2. That the aforesaid grounds are purely legal grounds . Raising

SHRI USMAN KHAN,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

B. Whether the Ld. AO was justified in issuing notices u/s 271AAA as well as 271(1)(c ) and that too without specifying any exact charge therein and this also proves that the Ld. AO was not sure about the exact charge under which he sought to impose penalty? 2. That the aforesaid grounds are purely legal grounds . Raising

SUNIT MADHOK,INDORE vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, , BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 271(1)(b) of the Act and subsequently levied of penalty of Rs.10,000/- in each case. 12. It is brought to our notice that except in the case of Sunit Madhok, assessments in all the other assessee(s) have been framed u/s 153A

M/S REGENT BEERS AND WINES LTD. ,INDORE vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 271(1)(b) of the Act and subsequently levied of penalty of Rs.10,000/- in each case. 12. It is brought to our notice that except in the case of Sunit Madhok, assessments in all the other assessee(s) have been framed u/s 153A

M/S REGENT BEERS AND WINES LTD. ,INDORE vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 271(1)(b) of the Act and subsequently levied of penalty of Rs.10,000/- in each case. 12. It is brought to our notice that except in the case of Sunit Madhok, assessments in all the other assessee(s) have been framed u/s 153A