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

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

section 144, which was passed without valid service of notice upon the appellant. The reassessment proceedings were initiated solely on AIR information, and the assessment was completed without giving the appellant an effective opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271

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

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

section 144, which was passed without valid service of notice upon the appellant. The reassessment proceedings were initiated solely on AIR information, and the assessment was completed without giving the appellant an effective opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271

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)

144 passed by the Assessing Officer on 23.11.2017 for the A.Y. 2010-11 and also the appeal filed against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) on 29.05.2018. As the matter was heard together and the penalty under section 271(1)(b) arises out of the assessment, the two cases are taken up together for adjudication. The grounds

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)

144 passed by the Assessing Officer on 23.11.2017 for the A.Y. 2010-11 and also the appeal filed against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) on 29.05.2018. As the matter was heard together and the penalty under section 271(1)(b) arises out of the assessment, the two cases are taken up together for adjudication. The grounds

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 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 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

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

144 of the Act were the same as in the regular asstt. order u/s 143(3) of the Act dtd. 26.02.2014 as well in the asstt. order passed U/Ss 143(3)/147 dtd. 20.06.2016. 4. That the AO has not recorded any satisfaction for levying penalty norinitiated any penalty u/s 271(1)(b) in the body of Asstt. order

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

144 of the Act were the same as in the regular asstt. order u/s 143(3) of the Act dtd. 26.02.2014 as well in the asstt. order passed U/Ss 143(3)/147 dtd. 20.06.2016. 4. That the AO has not recorded any satisfaction for levying penalty norinitiated any penalty u/s 271(1)(b) in the body of Asstt. order

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.

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 of Rs. 2,95,320/-. Whereas the Assessing Officer (AO) has received information that during the F.Y 2016-17 the assessee has made cash

JAINAM GROUP CHHINDWARA,CHHINDWARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

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

u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as decided by by the AO\nwhereas the fact is that the Partners of the firms introduce capital contribution\nin the firm from their own sources in to the bank account of the firm which is\nfurther substantiated by the Capital Account of the all partners, Bank Statement\nof the all partners

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(1)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.10,000/- for non compliance. Thereafter

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.

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and 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

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