RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

section 271(1)(c) i.e. the assessee has concealed the\nparticulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income without\nstriking off any one. Clearly therefore, the AO has failed to specify the exact\ncharge against assessee and in this situation, the decision of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Kulwant Singh Bhatia\n(supra) become applicable

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

51. The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus,\nburden lies on the department to establish that the assessee had concealed\nhis income. Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in\nthe assessment proceeding, a finding in an assessment proceeding that a\nparticular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted, though a\nfinding

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

section 271(1)(c) i.e. the assessee has concealed the\nparticulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income without\nstriking off any one. Clearly therefore, the AO has failed to specify the exact\ncharge against assessee and in this situation, the decision of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Kulwant Singh Bhatia\n(supra) become applicable

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniidea Cellular Ltd. Jcit 139-140 Electronics Complex Indore Vs. Pardeshipura Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaacb 2100P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

51,801/- levied under section 271C of the Income Tax Act.” 2. The Ld. senior counsel has submitted that an identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in assesse’s own case for A.Y.2011-12 to 2014-15 in ITANo.261 of 2018 & ITANo.266 to 269/Ind/2018 vide order dated 03.05.2023 wherein the tribunal has deleted the penalty levied

R.M CHEMICALS P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/AIT 4 (1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.R.M. Chemicals Acit , 4(1), Pvt.Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ 74,Jumerati, Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7154D Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ca & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2023

51,97,469/-. 4. Simultaneously, the AO initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c)qua the said addition vide show-cause notice dated 04.03.2016.During hearings of penalty-proceedings, the assessee filed replies which are re-produced by AO in penalty-order. Finally, the AO imposed penalty of Rs. 78,75,690/- equivalent to 100% of tax sought to be evaded

C.I. FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

51,30.144/- as\nadvance from customers. During the course of assessment proceedings, the\nId. AO never required the assessee to explain the nature to explain the nature\nPage 4 of 7\nC.I. Finlease Private Limited\nITA No. 397/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13\nof advances and never raised any query. The AO considered the advances of\nRs.52,63,569/-as revenue nature

SOURABH SHARMA,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, DELHI

The appeal of the assesse is allowed\nfor statistical purpose

51,04,070/-) remained unexplained and treated as its turnover\nfor the concerned year and profit be estimated at Rs.\n7,46,35,926/-i.e. @ 8% of Rs.93,29,49,070/- as business income\nbesides initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of\nIncome of the I.T. Act. Penalty also initiated u/s 271B of the Act\nfor failure

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

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO ACIT DYCIT FACELESS ASSESSMENT, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Penalty preceding u/s 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961 for non compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of IT act dated 03.02.2022 is being initiated.” 5.5 It is manifest from the assessment order that the same was passed by the AO without considering the reply filed by the assessee vide acknowledgment dated 28.02.2022 as well as without considering

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Penalty preceding u/s 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961 for non compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of IT act dated 03.02.2022 is being initiated.” 5.5 It is manifest from the assessment order that the same was passed by the AO without considering the reply filed by the assessee vide acknowledgment dated 28.02.2022 as well as without considering

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

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

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

271(1)(c)of the Act, 1961, Since, the penalty is separate proceeding and penalty has not been levied in the case of the appellant, the ground taken by the appellant is pre-matured at this stage, therefore, need not to be adjudicated. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8.8 Ground no. 10 pertains to levy

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately. Addition : Rs. 2,96,44,454/-.” Thus, for the AY 2012-13, the AO made addition of Rs. 51,20,79,310/- in gold business and Rs. 2,96,44,454/- in silver business. With identical observations, the AO also made additions of varying amounts

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately. Addition : Rs. 2,96,44,454/-.” Thus, for the AY 2012-13, the AO made addition of Rs. 51,20,79,310/- in gold business and Rs. 2,96,44,454/- in silver business. With identical observations, the AO also made additions of varying amounts