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

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nacit-1(1),\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N07.

2 (two) limbs have been\nmentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the\nassessee has concealed the particulars of his income or\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non\nmentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of\npenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including\norders

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\N\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nacit-1(1),\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\N\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing 19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement 07.

2 (two) limbs have been\nmentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the\nassessee has concealed the particulars of his income or\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non\nmentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of\npenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including\norders

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\N\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Nacit-1(1),\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Nbhopal\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Assessee/Appellant)\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N07.

2 (two) limbs have been\nmentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the\nassessee has concealed the particulars of his income or\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non\nmentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of\npenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including\norders

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

2 (two) limbs have been\nmentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the\nassessee has concealed the particulars of his income or\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non\nmentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of\npenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including\norders

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nacit-1(1),\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N07.

2 (two) limbs have been\nmentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the\nassessee has concealed the particulars of his income or\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non\nmentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of\npenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including\norders

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

2 (two) limbs have been\nmentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the\nassessee has concealed the particulars of his income or\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non\nmentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of\npenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including\norders

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nacit-1(1),\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N07.

2 (two) limbs have been\nmentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the\nassessee has concealed the particulars of his income or\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non\nmentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of\npenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including\norders

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Nacit-1(1),\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Assessee/Appellant)\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N07.

2 (two) limbs have been\nmentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the\nassessee has concealed the particulars of his income or\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non\nmentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of\npenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including\norders

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF I.TAX 1(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nacit-1(1),\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing 19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement 07.

2 (two) limbs have been\nmentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the\nassessee has concealed the particulars of his income or\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non\nmentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of\npenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including\norders

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

2 - Through these ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs. 60,00,0001- U/S 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and also the initiation of the penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) and also the penalty show cause notice issued uls 274. 5.1.1 It is seen that the appellant filed its return

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL-1, INDORE

u/s Section 274 sets in motion the penalty-\nproceeding. According to Ld. AR, the aforesaid notice issued by AO is very\nmuch vague in as much it contains stereotype language of section 271(1)(c).\nThe Ld. AR contended that by mentioning that the assessee has “concealed\nthe particulars of income” or “furnished inaccurate particulars of income\",\nthe

PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5 (1)- BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed, penalty is\ndeleted

u/s 271(1)(C) they intend imposing the penalty on the\nassessee. In the absence of any averment on “concealment of\nincome by assessee” or furnishing inaccurate particular of\nincome” the notice(s) (supra) are defective, illegal & bad in law.\n4.5 We hold that penalty is in addition to tax liability of the\nassessee. It entails serious civil consequences

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,ANDHERI 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

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

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