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

6,28,330 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2007-08 -do- 3,80,020 Infrastructure Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. Name of assessee A.Y. Penalty u/s Amount Rs. 271AAA Keti-T 2011-12 -do- 43,94,610 Construction Keti Sangam 2011-12 -do- 25,14,100 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2012-13 -do- 25,07,250 Infrastcucture 4. We would

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

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

6,25,000/- under section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be quashed. 1.4.1] The aforesaid issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Gillco Developers and Builders (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Chandigarh as reported in [2017] 85 taxmann.com

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

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

6,25,000/- under section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be quashed. 1.4.1] The aforesaid issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Gillco Developers and Builders (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Chandigarh as reported in [2017] 85 taxmann.com

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 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3 Bhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the Page

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 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3 Bhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the Page

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 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3 Bhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the Page

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 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3 Bhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the Page

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

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

u/s 292BB of the Act. Therefore, we hereby quash the penalty order.” [Emphasis Supplied] 1.4.4] The Hon’ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri R. Elangovan [ITA No. 1199/CHNY/2017] has categorically held that: “5…………..It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, it does not contain the ingredients of section 271AAB of the Act. Under these facts the notice is improper and is not in accordance with requirement of law. The assessing officer is expected to make his direction clear as to which clause of section 271AAB of the Act, he wishes to invoke. There

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

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

250 of the IT Act as applicable to penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of I.T Act for AY 2014-15, dated 01.01.2025 (Enablement of Communication hearing notice), 09.05.2025, 17.06.2025 and latest hearing notice dated 22.07.2025 posting the appeal for hearing/filing submissions on or before 28.07.2025. For all these hearing notices, appellant has filed its submissions on 15.05.2025 and reiterated

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

250 of the IT Act as applicable to penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of I.T Act for AY 2014-15, dated 01.01.2025 (Enablement of Communication hearing notice), 09.05.2025, 17.06.2025 and latest hearing notice dated 22.07.2025 posting the appeal for hearing/filing submissions on or before 28.07.2025. For all these hearing notices, appellant has filed its submissions on 15.05.2025 and reiterated

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

250 on 30/08/2024 for A.Y. 2009-10 by CIT(Appeals)-3 Bhopal upholding the penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of addition sustained by the Hon'ble ITAT in quantum Appeal is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. d. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

250 on 30/08/2024 for A.Y. 2009-10 by CIT(Appeals)-3 Bhopal upholding the penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of addition sustained by the Hon'ble ITAT in quantum Appeal is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. d. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE,INDORE vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER IF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN , INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

250 on 30/08/2024 for A.Y. 2009-10 by CIT(Appeals)-3 Bhopal upholding the penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of addition sustained by the Hon'ble ITAT in quantum Appeal is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. d. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI UMESH LILANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) I, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenging the legality of the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act, relied on various judgments Annexed in the paper book and pleaded that the impugned notices in all these seven cases are liable to be quashed, as the Ld. AO has not specified the charge on the assessee