M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

9 appeals bearing ITA Nos. 1341/Ind/2016, 1343/Ind/2016, 1342/Ind/2016, 516/Ind/2017, 515/Ind/2016, 513/Ind/2017, 1344/Ind/2016, 514/Ind/2017 and 512/Ind/2017 relating to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On going through the grounds of appeal filed by different assessees we find that they are common and the assessee has challenged the legality of the notices issued u/s 274 read with section

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

9 appeals bearing ITA Nos. 1341/Ind/2016, 1343/Ind/2016, 1342/Ind/2016, 516/Ind/2017, 515/Ind/2016, 513/Ind/2017, 1344/Ind/2016, 514/Ind/2017 and 512/Ind/2017 relating to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On going through the grounds of appeal filed by different assessees we find that they are common and the assessee has challenged the legality of the notices issued u/s 274 read with section

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

9 appeals bearing ITA Nos. 1341/Ind/2016, 1343/Ind/2016, 1342/Ind/2016, 516/Ind/2017, 515/Ind/2016, 513/Ind/2017, 1344/Ind/2016, 514/Ind/2017 and 512/Ind/2017 relating to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On going through the grounds of appeal filed by different assessees we find that they are common and the assessee has challenged the legality of the notices issued u/s 274 read with section

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

9. Considering the aforesaid, the Tribunal has held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 is not sustainable in law, as no specific charge was levied in penalty show-cause notices and allowed the appeal No.ITA (Appeal) 414/Ind/2012 and other five appeals. 10. It is submitted that the provision of Section 271

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

9. Considering the aforesaid, the Tribunal has held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 is not sustainable in law, as no specific charge was levied in penalty show-cause notices and allowed the appeal No.ITA (Appeal) 414/Ind/2012 and other five appeals. 10. It is submitted that the provision of Section 271

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

9. Considering the aforesaid, the Tribunal has held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 is not sustainable in law, as no specific charge was levied in penalty show-cause notices and allowed the appeal No.ITA (Appeal) 414/Ind/2012 and other five appeals. 10. It is submitted that the provision of Section 271

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

9. Considering the aforesaid, the Tribunal has held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 is not sustainable in law, as no specific charge was levied in penalty show-cause notices and allowed the appeal No.ITA (Appeal) 414/Ind/2012 and other five appeals. 10. It is submitted that the provision of Section 271

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

9. Ld. AR submitted that a simple reading of section 271AAB(1A), without making any effort, clearly shows that the section prescribes penalty @ 30% or 60% of the “undisclosed income” and the term “undisclosed income” has also been defined by Parliament in the Explanation to section 271AAB itself. The said Explanation prescribes “For the purposes of this section, ….. (c) “undisclosed

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

9. Ld. AR submitted that a simple reading of section 271AAB(1A), without making any effort, clearly shows that the section prescribes penalty @ 30% or 60% of the “undisclosed income” and the term “undisclosed income” has also been defined by Parliament in the Explanation to section 271AAB itself. The said Explanation prescribes “For the purposes of this section, ….. (c) “undisclosed

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

9. Ld. AR submitted that a simple reading of section 271AAB(1A), without making any effort, clearly shows that the section prescribes penalty @ 30% or 60% of the “undisclosed income” and the term “undisclosed income” has also been defined by Parliament in the Explanation to section 271AAB itself. The said Explanation prescribes “For the purposes of this section, ….. (c) “undisclosed

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

9. Ld. AR submitted that a simple reading of section 271AAB(1A), without making any effort, clearly shows that the section prescribes penalty @ 30% or 60% of the “undisclosed income” and the term “undisclosed income” has also been defined by Parliament in the Explanation to section 271AAB itself. The said Explanation prescribes “For the purposes of this section, ….. (c) “undisclosed

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

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

9 to 14 of 2018] held that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable when there is no specific charge mentioned in the show cause notice [refer Para 11 of the decision]: “11. On due consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, so also considering the fact that the ground mentioned

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

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

9 to 14 of 2018] held that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable when there is no specific charge mentioned in the show cause notice [refer Para 11 of the decision]: “11. On due consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, so also considering the fact that the ground mentioned

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

9. A conjoint reading of both these sections would suggest that where a search has been initiated the AO may direct payment of penalty in addition to tax if any payable by him. However, provisions of section 274 and 275 shall so far as may apply in relation to the penalty referred to in section 271AAB

SHRI KULWANT SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, INDORE

In the result, all the ix appeals as mentioned above are

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ /. सं . अ .

9. Being aggrieved the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT (A). The assessee aggrieved with order of the AO filed appeal before Ld. CIT (A) who has also confirmed the said penalty. According to Ld. CIT (A) the provisions of section 271(1)(c) together with Explanation 5A brings the assessee liable for penalty in respect of additional

M/S. STI (INDIA) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9. Considering the aforesaid, the Tribunal has held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 is not sustainable in law, as no specific charge was levied in penalty show-cause notices and allowed the appeal No.ITA (Appeal) 414/Ind/2012 and other five appeals. 10. It is submitted that the provision of Section 271

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

9 of 2018)(copy attached) wherein following SSA’s Emerald Meadows attached) wherein following SSA’s Emerald Meadows’ case the penalty has case the penalty has attached) attached) wherein following SSA’s Emerald Meadows wherein following SSA’s Emerald Meadows case the penalty has case the penalty has been held invalid due to defecti been held invalid due to defective

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

9 of 2018)(copy attached) wherein following SSA’s Emerald Meadows attached) wherein following SSA’s Emerald Meadows’ case the penalty has case the penalty has attached) attached) wherein following SSA’s Emerald Meadows wherein following SSA’s Emerald Meadows case the penalty has case the penalty has been held invalid due to defecti been held invalid due to defective