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

u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act for AY 2014-15 and the same are discussed together as under as involving similar/same facts of case as advanced by the appellant as per law. Further the appellant has filed these two appeals, one each against assessment order and related penalty order of AO of AY 2014-15 with a delay

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

section 269SS/T need to be invoked and shall accordingly be referred to JCIT (Central), Indore. He also referred immediate next Para 20.6 of assessment-order wherein the AO has mentioned that he was satisfied that the assessee had concealed income and therefore penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are without jurisdiction and bad in law, as the Assessing Officer failed to record any prima facie satisfaction or reasons in the assessment order justifying the initiation of penalty proceedings. The mere mention of Penalty proceedings u/s

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, are without jurisdiction and bad in law, as the\nAssessing Officer failed to record any prima facie satisfaction or reasons in\nthe assessment order justifying the initiation of penalty proceedings. The\nmere mention of Penalty proceedings u/s

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are without jurisdiction and bad in law, as the Assessing Officer failed to record any prima facie satisfaction or reasons in the assessment order justifying the initiation of penalty proceedings. The mere mention of Penalty proceedings u/s

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

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

penalty order & so also in the “Impugned\nAssessment Order” the material ingredients of section 271(1)\nare not stated. It it not known to the assessee as to whether\nwhich limb of section 271(1) is attracted/invoked. It was\nsubmitted that it is incumbent upon the department to state\nexpressly both in notice as well as order

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Section 271(1) contemplates satisfaction in\ncourse of any proceedings for penalty u/s 271(a)(b)(c)(d).\nUnder

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable as per the Explanation 4(b) to section 271(1)(c

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable as per the Explanation 4(b) to section 271(1)(c

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c). Copies of show-\ncause notices are placed in respective Paper-Books (Page 4 of Paper-Book of\nAY 2009-10, Page 3 of Paper-Book of AY 2010-11, Page 2 of Paper-Book of\nAY 2012-13). Ultimately, the AO imposed penalty

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c). Copies of show-\ncause notices are placed in respective Paper-Books (Page 4 of Paper-Book of\nAY 2009-10, Page 3 of Paper-Book of AY 2010-11, Page 2 of Paper-Book of\nAY 2012-13). Ultimately, the AO imposed penalty

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c). Copies of show-\ncause notices are placed in respective Paper-Books (Page 4 of Paper-Book of\nAY 2009-10, Page 3 of Paper-Book of AY 2010-11, Page 2 of Paper-Book of\nAY 2012-13). Ultimately, the AO imposed penalty

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

u/s 274 read\nwith section 271(1)(c) followed by follow-up letters dated 31.05.2018. Copies\nof show-cause notices and follow-up letters are placed in Paper-Book at\nPages 141-142, 155-156 & 157-158. Ultimately, the AO imposed penalty

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANUPUR vs. JOINT COMMISIIONER OF INCOME TAX -OSD, CENTRAL-1, INDORE , INDORE

u/s 274 read\nwith section 271(1)(c) followed by follow-up letters dated 31.05.2018. Copies\nof show-cause notices and follow-up letters are placed in Paper-Book at\nPages 141-142, 155-156 & 157-158. Ultimately, the AO imposed penalty

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

penalty-order dated 28.06.2018 passed by\nlearned DCIT-Central-1, Indore [“AO"] u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

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

Appeal is allowed

penalty on\nundisclosed income where the proceedings u/s 132 of the Act is initiated,\nand on the other hand the sub-section (2) puts an embargo on imposing of\npenalty u/s 270A and u/s 271(1)(c

SEEMA JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

u/s 271(1)(C). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appellant voluntarily in compliance of section 50 C paid additional tax which did not automatically attract the penalty

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Therefore, the penalty-order of AY 2012-13 is unsustainable for this very reason also that there is no satisfaction recorded by AO in assessment-order qua any default having been committed by assessee attracting penalty proceedings of section

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for\nfurnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\"\nTherefore, the penalty-order of AY 2012-13 is unsustainable for this very\nreason also that there is no satisfaction recorded by AO in assessment-order\nqua any default having been committed by assessee attracting penalty\nproceedings of section