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

24 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024 - AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271

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

24 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024 - AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 271(1)(c). (Ram Kumar Yadav) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Indore 19. From going through the above notice it is well evident that in the notice the specific charge/limb u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not mentioned. The Ld. A.O has not striked off one of the charge which is not relevant to the assessee

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 271(1)(c). (Ram Kumar Yadav) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Indore 19. From going through the above notice it is well evident that in the notice the specific charge/limb u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not mentioned. The Ld. A.O has not striked off one of the charge which is not relevant to the assessee

SHRI PANKAJ KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, OSD (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

u/s. 271AAA for the AYs under consideration in the case of respective assessees.” [Emphasis Supplied] 2.5.1] Further, in the facts of the present case, legitimate amount of tax due on additional income had been paid well before the conclusion of the assessment as well as penalty proceedings. 2.5.2] The provision of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA of the Income

SHRI DIPAK KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT,OSD, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

u/s. 271AAA for the AYs under consideration in the case of respective assessees.” [Emphasis Supplied] 2.5.1] Further, in the facts of the present case, legitimate amount of tax due on additional income had been paid well before the conclusion of the assessment as well as penalty proceedings. 2.5.2] The provision of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA of the Income

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced hereinabove

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced hereinabove

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off.” 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced hereinabove

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

2 (two) limbs have been mentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non mentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including orders

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

2 (two) limbs have been mentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non mentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including orders

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

2 (two) limbs have been mentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non mentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including orders

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

2 (two) limbs have been mentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non mentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including orders

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges