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

SURAJ SINGH,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

section 148(1) is a para materia provision, casting, like-wise, an obligation to file the return of income, which is rather more compelling inasmuch as in such a case the Revenue has a reason to believe that the assessee’s income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. No wonder, then, that the AO refers to both the incidents while

SURAJ SINGH,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

section 148(1) is a para materia provision, casting, like-wise, an obligation to file the return of income, which is rather more compelling inasmuch as in such a case the Revenue has a reason to believe that the assessee’s income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. No wonder, then, that the AO refers to both the incidents while

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

271 C was, not correctly levied and may kindly be quashed/deleted. 4. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside on natural grounds too as CIT(A) fixed the appeal hearing dates in Corona Pandemic period and hence sufficient opportunity was not given to assessee to reply and present his case

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

271 C was, not correctly levied and may kindly be quashed/deleted. 4. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside on natural grounds too as CIT(A) fixed the appeal hearing dates in Corona Pandemic period and hence sufficient opportunity was not given to assessee to reply and present his case

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

271 C was, not correctly levied and may kindly be quashed/deleted. 4. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside on natural grounds too as CIT(A) fixed the appeal hearing dates in Corona Pandemic period and hence sufficient opportunity was not given to assessee to reply and present his case

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

271 C was, not correctly levied and may kindly be quashed/deleted. 4. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside on natural grounds too as CIT(A) fixed the appeal hearing dates in Corona Pandemic period and hence sufficient opportunity was not given to assessee to reply and present his case

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

271 C was, not correctly levied and may kindly be quashed/deleted. 4. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside on natural grounds too as CIT(A) fixed the appeal hearing dates in Corona Pandemic period and hence sufficient opportunity was not given to assessee to reply and present his case

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 u/s 271(1)(b) without appreciating the fact that no notice of hearing and fixation of case was ever served to the assessee. 7.2 This allegation of the assessee is baseless. The Assessing Officer issued several notices at the address of the assessee which was available with department during the assessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer. The Assessment order

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

12. The order imposing penalty u/s 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

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

12. The order imposing penalty u/s 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

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

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 with the notices and the assessee has not disclosed the reasonable cause for non compliance to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act therefore

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) may not be initiated in respect of such investment, however, he has not issued any show-cause for invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act or has called for any explanation of the assessee regarding the nature and source of such investment. In fact, the assessment order so passed by the Assessing officer

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NFAC, ITO BALAGHAT, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless Appeal 1, Ward No. 9, Ram Mandir Center (Nfac) Road, Katangi, Balaghat (Mp)- Delhi (Jurisdiction Officer, 481445. Income Tax Officer, Balaghat (Mp)-110001. Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (A) The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)- Delhi, Dated 23.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

penalty is livable u/s 271(1)(c) .” (B) In this case, assessment order dated 20.12.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.1,12

M/S ANUSHREE ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) and u/s. 143(3) 1 ITA No. 152 -153/Jab/2013 & 06/Jab/2018 Anushree Engineering v. ITO read s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) and that dated 13/11/2017 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 2.1 The facts of the case

M/S.ANUSHRI ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) and u/s. 143(3) 1 ITA No. 152 -153/Jab/2013 & 06/Jab/2018 Anushree Engineering v. ITO read s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) and that dated 13/11/2017 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 2.1 The facts of the case