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

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

section 147 of the Act on 05.12.2017, pursuant to a notice u/s. 148(1) on 22.3.2017. The said notice, as well as those following it, being u/s. 142(1), dated 31.8.2017 (for 12.9.2017) and 27.10.2017 (for 07.11.2017), were handed over by him to his local tax consultant for further necessary action. It is only later, on receipt of assessment order

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 147 of the Act on 05.12.2017, pursuant to a notice u/s. 148(1) on 22.3.2017. The said notice, as well as those following it, being u/s. 142(1), dated 31.8.2017 (for 12.9.2017) and 27.10.2017 (for 07.11.2017), were handed over by him to his local tax consultant for further necessary action. It is only later, on receipt of assessment order

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. 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

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 in the notice u/s 142(1) dated 05/09/2019 (P 38 - 39) was already

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

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 in the notice u/s 142(1) dated 05/09/2019 (P 38 - 39) was already

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

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

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 with the notices and the assessee has not disclosed the reasonable cause for non compliance to the notice u/s 142

SHRI SANDEEP VIJAN,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2016-17 Sandeep Vijan V. Acit Vijan Mahal Hotel Central Circle Mandla Road, Tilhari Jabalpur Jabalpur Tan/Pan:Abjpv5541K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Bhopal, Dated 31/5/2018 For Assessment Year 2016-17, Taking The Following Grounds: 1. Considering The Fact That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 On 08.12.2017, Hence The Id Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- Imposed By The Ao For Non-Filing Of Income Tax Return. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Id Cit(A) Should Have Held That The Id Ao Was Not Justified In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 3. The Orders Of Lower Authorities Is Bad In Law Hence May Kindly Be Cancelled.

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act, vide notice dated 2/8/2017 on account of non-compliance of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, dated 23/6/2017. However, the assessee has filed the return in response to the notice issued by the A.O. u/s. 142(1), dated 23/6/2017, as stated hereinabove, on 8/12/2017. The scanned copy of the acknowledgement

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

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.

Section 132 was carried out in the case of the assessee(s) on 07.01.2016. Assessee(s) was asked to file the returns of income u/s 153 A for all the A.Ys 2010-11 to 2015-16 vide notice dated 27.10.2016. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 142(1) with questionnaires for A.Ys

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.

Section 132 was carried out in the case of the assessee(s) on 07.01.2016. Assessee(s) was asked to file the returns of income u/s 153 A for all the A.Ys 2010-11 to 2015-16 vide notice dated 27.10.2016. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 142(1) with questionnaires for A.Ys

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.

Section 132 was carried out in the case of the assessee(s) on 07.01.2016. Assessee(s) was asked to file the returns of income u/s 153 A for all the A.Ys 2010-11 to 2015-16 vide notice dated 27.10.2016. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 142(1) with questionnaires for A.Ys

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.

Section 132 was carried out in the case of the assessee(s) on 07.01.2016. Assessee(s) was asked to file the returns of income u/s 153 A for all the A.Ys 2010-11 to 2015-16 vide notice dated 27.10.2016. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 142(1) with questionnaires for A.Ys