INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR RAWAT, JABALPUR

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

section (provision of law), as long as the authority has the power in exercise of which the relevant judicial action has been taken, would not defeat the same. This, however, is not the case here. That, for instance, would be the case where the assessee had indeed received cash from or on behalf of his wife, attracting a penalty u/s

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. J.P.Tobacco Products Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar. Damoh (M.P.). (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28.06.2010 amounting to Rs.2,72,850/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. On further appeal, Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty observing as under:- 7.1.3.DECISION:-“I have carefully considered the submission put forth including the case laws relied upon & the documents 3 | P a g e J.P.Tobacco Product Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT furnished

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

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

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- u/s 271 C of the IT Act. 3. The CIT(A) has erred

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- u/s 271 C of the IT Act. 3. The CIT(A) has erred

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- u/s 271 C of the IT Act. 3. The CIT(A) has erred

MANESSH SHARMA ,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- u/s 271 C of the IT Act. 3. The CIT(A) has erred

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- u/s 271 C of the IT Act. 3. The CIT(A) has erred

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟, hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10, vide which the ld. CIT(A) has upheld the 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

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

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

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

271(1)(b) of I.T. Act 1961 has been passed imposing penalty at Rs. 10,000/- for no complying to notice u/s 142(1) of I.T. act 1961 dated 05/09/2019. 13. Notice u/s 142(1) was in the set aside assessment proceedings pursuance to order passed u/s 263 of I.T. Act 1961. We find that the information required

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

271(1)(b) of I.T. Act 1961 has been passed imposing penalty at Rs. 10,000/- for no complying to notice u/s 142(1) of I.T. act 1961 dated 05/09/2019. 13. Notice u/s 142(1) was in the set aside assessment proceedings pursuance to order passed u/s 263 of I.T. Act 1961. We find that the information required

PRADEEP SHARMA,SAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KATNI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

10. The provisions of section 115BBE thus provides that where the income of the assessee includes any income referred to in section 69, the income tax payable shall be at the rate of 30% on income so referred in section 69 and on the remaining income, the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable

SALEEM AHMED KHAN, BOON ELECTRONIC, CORPORATION MARKET NAUDARA BRIDGE,JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 2(1) , JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA No 88/Jab/2022 is not maintainable, ITA

10. These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/s 271(1)(b) and section 250 of the Act. 11. The AO in the course of hearing proceedings has issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on various dates, whereas the assessee could not complied

RANJEET SHIVHARE,BETUL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita Nos. 53 To 59/Jab/2017 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2016-17   Ranjeet Shivhare, Deputy Commissioner Of C-29, Civil Lines, Vs Income-Tax Betul (Mp) Cenral-1, Pan : Arups 3197 F Bhopal ""./ Ita Nos. 62 To 68/Jab/2017 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2016-17   Smt. Sunita Shivhare Deputy Commissioner Of C-29, Civil Lines, Vs Income-Tax Betul (Mp) Cenral-1, Pan : Bdgps 4272 Q Bhopal / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pd Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Bench :- This Bunch Of Fourteen Appeals By Two Assessees (Seven Appeals Each) Have Been Filed Against Two Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal (Mp) Dated 02.08.2017 In The Case Smt. Sunita Shivhare & Dated 11.08.2017 In The Case Of Shri Ranjeet Shivhare, Arising Out Of Order U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “The Act”) Framed By The Dcit (Central)-1, Bhopal Imposing Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- Each In Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2016- 17. Since All These Appeals Pertain To The Same Group & The Issue Involved Is Also Identical, All These Appeals Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

10,000/- for each assessment year. However, on the date fixed for hearing on 29.05.2017, no compliance was made. Therefore, show cause notices for all the A.Ys 2010-11 to 2016-17 were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee(s), which were also not complied with. Subsequently, Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 271