ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the I..T. Act are initiated separately. 11. Per contra ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the following written submissions:- Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 The facts of the case are that the appellant is a society which was established on 04.12.1996 basically for development of downtrodden/poor people of society

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A),NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

271(1)(c) [i.e. penalty qua the addition made in assessment-order] that the assessee consulted his counsel and became aware of the impugned order having been passed by CIT(A). Immediately thereafter, according to the consultation given by counsel, the appeal fee was paid on 24.01.2025 and present appeal was filed without further delay. Ld. AR very humbly submitted

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A) ,NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

271(1)(c) [i.e. penalty qua the addition made in assessment-order] that the assessee consulted his counsel and became aware of the impugned order having been passed by CIT(A). Immediately thereafter, according to the consultation given by counsel, the appeal fee was paid on 24.01.2025 and present appeal was filed without further delay. Ld. AR very humbly submitted

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessee’s failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. 5 of the Limitation Act the delay of 2037 days in filing of appeal is not condoned and appeal is not admitted. Page 4 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessee’s failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. 5 of the Limitation Act the delay of 2037 days in filing of appeal is not condoned and appeal is not admitted. Page 4 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

BALKISHAN KOSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

penalty-order dated 03.02.2022 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The grounds raised in these appeals are as under: I.T.A. No. 04/Ind/2024 (Quantum appeal): 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Faceless Delhi had not considered reasonable and sufficient cause to condone delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, 1961, hence appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified

BALKISHAN KOUSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

penalty-order dated 03.02.2022 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The grounds raised in these appeals are as under: I.T.A. No. 04/Ind/2024 (Quantum appeal): 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Faceless Delhi had not considered reasonable and sufficient cause to condone delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, 1961, hence appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified

RANVEER SINGH SURYAWANSHI,DHAR vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiranveer Singh Suryawanshi, Ito, Dhar बनाम/ Datwada Datwade, Vs. Indore, Mp (Pan:Awlps7673N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan,Ca & Ruchira Singhal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

271(1) (c) of the Act, a penalty of Rs. 29,32,874/- was imposed on the assessee. The aforesaid penalty order bears no: - ITBA/PNL/F/271(1) (C)/2024-25/1067563270(1) and that the same is dated 09.08.2024, which is herein after referred to as the “impugned penalty order” 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order” prefers

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

249 (ASR-ITAT) [Paper Book at Page71], the ITAT, Amritsar Bench held as under : “On a perusal of section 153C, it would be clear that the provisions of this section are applicable which supersedes the applicability of provisions of sections 147 and 148. In the instant case, the documents were seized during the search under section 132 and the same

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

249 (ASR-ITAT) [Paper Book at Page71], the ITAT, Amritsar Bench held as under : “On a perusal of section 153C, it would be clear that the provisions of this section are applicable which supersedes the applicability of provisions of sections 147 and 148. In the instant case, the documents were seized during the search under section 132 and the same

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

271(1)(b) and/or exparte decision on the basis of available material only. It also brightens the chance against levy of concealment penalty. Exparte assessment order has its own limitations as to its scope and extent. Hence the assessee should not be allowed to be enriched or benefited unjustly for act of his own wrong doings, i.e. non- compliance

SHEETAL NATH COLONIZERS,BHOPAL vs. ITO,1(2), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also proposed in SCN. In response thereto AR of the assessee furnished reply on 28.02.2002 at final stage of assessment proceedings which examined and found not convincing. The relevant portion of reply is reproduced herewith. Para-4 of reply dated 28.12.2022 During the financial year 2011-12 assessee has purchase

KALPANA NARWARE,BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

u/s 69A of the Act and entire turnover was taxed @3%,\nthereby making addition of Rs 1,02,14,380/-.\n9. It is submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the Appellant had\nprovided all relevant documents to its Chartered Accountant, Shri Anil\nBangad, for ensuring proper compliance in response to the notice. However,\ndespite repeated follow-ups, the Counsel failed

INDIRA BAI JINDAL,KHARGONE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 147 of the act which is bad in law. Indira Bai Jindal vs. ITO A.Y. 2013-14 3. The Assessee was passed away during the assessment proceedings and response was made by legal representative even then the Assessment proceedings was continued in the name of deceased assessee and Order was also made in the name of deceased person which

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

271(1) (c) of the IT are initiated separately for A.Ys 2015-16.” 24. It is pertinent to note that in the statement recorded u/s 134 of the Act and to answer the Question No.22, the assessee has stated that the details in this diary are related to election management activities as well as election management expenditure. The statement

MUSTAFA ALI THROUGH GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, AUN ALI OTIAWALA,NEEMUCH vs. ITO, NEEMUCH

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty- order dated 22.05.2019 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the underlying facts and issues are identical/inter-related, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 2. These are the second-appeals filed by assessee before this tribunal against the impugned orders of first-appeals passed

MUSTAFA ALI THROUGH GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, AUN ALI OTIAWALA,NEEMUCH vs. ITO, NEEMUCH

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty- order dated 22.05.2019 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the underlying facts and issues are identical/inter-related, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 2. These are the second-appeals filed by assessee before this tribunal against the impugned orders of first-appeals passed

MUSTAFA ALI THROUGH GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, AUN ALI OTIAWALA,NEEMUCH vs. ITO, NEEMUCH

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty- order dated 22.05.2019 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the underlying facts and issues are identical/inter-related, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 2. These are the second-appeals filed by assessee before this tribunal against the impugned orders of first-appeals passed