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

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

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

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(1

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-CHHINDWARA, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI SHEVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

142(1) along with questionnaire. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.89,72.239/- on account of bogus purchases shown in trading account, Rs.84,65,420/- on account of undisclosed receipts, Rs.89.38.780/- on account of unexplained cash deposits and Rs.14,265/- on account of unexplained interest. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30/11/2018, the assessee preferred appeal before

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

TRIYUGI NARAYAN DWIWEDI,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD - 1, REWA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17 Triyugi Narayan Dwivedi V. Income Tax Officer Ward No.03, Bramhan Tola Ward-1 Dhari Khadda, Semariya Distt- Kothi Compound Becides Rewa-486001. Family Court, Rewa- 486001. Pan: Bhbpd4469B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Shri Kng Pillai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 17 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (“Act”, for short) for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 10.12.2021 and 03.02.2021. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer vide penalty order dated 21.09.2022 levied a penalty of Rs.20,000/-. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who sustained the penalty

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

Sections 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time. However, there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also proceeded to impose penalty u/s. 271

JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH BAGRI,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD , , SATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 147 and under sec. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and on facts and against the principles of natural justice. Jitendra Pratap Singh Bagri, Satna. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,57,000/- made by the Assessing