RAJESH SINGH,REWA vs. ITO WARD -1,REWA, REWA

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty of Rs. 30,000/- demanded U/S 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961 which is not based on any concrete finding but was entirely estimated, arbitrary, assumptions & Presumptions and bad in law. 3- That the Assessee crave leaves to raise any other grounds on or before the date of hearing to prove that the order passed

RAJESH SINGH,REWA vs. ITO WARD-1 REWA, REWA

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty of Rs. 30,000/- demanded U/S 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961 which is not based on any concrete finding but was entirely estimated, arbitrary, assumptions & Presumptions and bad in law. 3- That the Assessee crave leaves to raise any other grounds on or before the date of hearing to prove that the order passed

SURAJ SINGH,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

271(1)(b), in the assessee’s words, ‘blind faith’ in his local consultant who, for reasons best known to him, did not represent the assessee, as agreed to. I shall take up the two penalties in seriatim. 4.3 The non-furnishing of the return u/s. 139(1) is explained to be due to the assessee’s income being below

SURAJ SINGH,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

271(1)(b), in the assessee’s words, ‘blind faith’ in his local consultant who, for reasons best known to him, did not represent the assessee, as agreed to. I shall take up the two penalties in seriatim. 4.3 The non-furnishing of the return u/s. 139(1) is explained to be due to the assessee’s income being below

AVNISH KUMAR GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, REWA, REWA

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the matter are that after the assesse returned his income for the year on 01-09-2010, the Revenue got information that he had made cash deposits

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR BAN SHYAM BAND,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita Nos. 98 & 99/Jab/2013 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2007-08   Shri Manoj Kumar Ben, Income Tax Officer, Shri Shyam Band, Near Vs Ward 1 (1), Lordganj Thana, Jabalpur Jabalpur Pan : Agopb 2241 C / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Sh. M.M. Nema, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Kul Bharat:-

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 23.07.2012 and 24.07.2012 respectively for Assessment Year 2007-08. Since the issue involved in these appeals is common, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First we take

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

u/s 142(1). The penalty of Rs. 50000/- should be quashed in toto. 4. That The applicant reserves his right to raise additional ground or grounds of appeal those may arise at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are, that the return of income of the assessee for the assessment year

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

u/s 142(1). The penalty of Rs. 50000/- should be quashed in toto. 4. That The applicant reserves his right to raise additional ground or grounds of appeal those may arise at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are, that the return of income of the assessee for the assessment year

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT (A), SAGAR

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable in law and facts. 2. Penalty Confirmed Without Establishing Concealment or Inaccurate Particulars The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) without demonstrating that the appellant had either concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The appellant had no willful intent or knowledge

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable in law and facts. 2. Penalty Confirmed Without Establishing Concealment or Inaccurate Particulars The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) without demonstrating that the appellant had either concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The appellant had no willful intent or knowledge

RAJ KUMAR KHATIK,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, SAGAR, SAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleraj Kumar Khatik, Vs Ito, Fresh Vegetable Commission Ward-3, Sagar Agent, Sabji Mandi, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh-470002. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cefpk7387R Assessee By Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

u/s 142(1)of the Act. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1 | P a g e 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty of 10,000/- imposed under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. On the facts

ABHISHEK PUROHIT, SAGAR,SAGAR vs. ITO WARD (3) SAGAR, SAGAR

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Abhishek Purohit, Vs. Ito, Kotwali Road, Ward (3), Behind Putrishala School, Sagar Sagar. Pan : Asbpp 4859M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.10,000/- for non compliance. Thereafter, in view of continued non-compliance from the side of the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act at Rs.87,43,946/-, after making addition of Rs.87,43,090/- on account of deposits in the Bank Account

NAGAR PANCHAYAT,BANDA vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Nagar Panchayat, Banda, Vs. The Acit, Nagar Parishad Building, Banda, Sagar, Circle Sagar, Sagar Banda Nagar S.O. Madhya Pradesh Pan:Aaaln0246R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 7.05.2024 Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Dcit, Circle-Sagar, Madhya Pradesh Passed On 10.12.2019 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre ('Nfac) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Sagar ('Ao) In Adding A Sum Of Rs. 68,21,182/- To The Income Of The Assessee U/S. 69A As Unexplained Money. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.3 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Is Opposed To The Principles Of Equity, Natural Justice & Fair Play.

u/s. 69A as unexplained money. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated 10.12.2019 is without jurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be quashed.3 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

cash in the bank account. The Assessing Officer, treated the aforesaid amount as assessee’s income in the assessment order. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was dismissed by learned CIT(A). Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (D) At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

cash in the bank account. The Assessing Officer, treated the aforesaid amount as assessee’s income in the assessment order. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was dismissed by learned CIT(A). Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (D) At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

cash in the bank account. The Assessing Officer, treated the aforesaid amount as assessee’s income in the assessment order. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was dismissed by learned CIT(A). Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (D) At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

In the result, ITA. No. 129/JAB/2024 & ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

cash in the bank account. The Assessing Officer, treated the aforesaid amount as assessee’s income in the assessment order. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was dismissed by learned CIT(A). Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (D) At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH,REWA vs. ITO WARD SINGRAULI, SINGRAULI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Kumar Singh, Vs. Ito, 14/357, Sanjay Nagar Singrauli, Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh.

u/s 272A(1)(d). While furnishing the details of appeal there is no column for section under which penalty levied, as such section of penalty is selected 271(1)(b) being corresponding section 2.The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 16.03.2018 disclosing a total income