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

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. (4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the levy of penalty is perverse unjustified and uncalled for.” 2 | P a g e J.P.Tobacco Product Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessment u/s

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1 , REWA vs. BHANU PRATAP SINGH, REWA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2007-08 Income Tax Officer V. Bhanu Pratap Singh Ward 1 Nirmal Chhaya Khutehi Rewa Rewa Tan/Pan:Avpps0806G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.10/Jab/2017 [In Ita No.47/Jab/2017] Assessment Year:2007-08 Bhanu Pratap Singh V. Income Tax Officer Nirmal Chhaya Khutehi Ward 1 Rewa Rewa Tan/Pan:Avpps0806G (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) by the assessing officer merely on the ground that the correct section was section 271AAA of the I.T Act instead of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act. The CIT(A has erred in ignoring the fact that no search has been initiated in the ITA No.47/JAB/2017 & C.O. No.10/JAB/2017 Page 2

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

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 is bad.” [[ 2

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 is bad.” [[ 2

VENKET RAMAN NARLWAR, THROUGHOUT L/H DR. PRATIMA RAMAN,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshradr. Pratima Raman (L/H Of V. Income Tax Officer-2 Venket Raman Narlwar Aayakar Bhawan, Sahkarita Maryadit) Jhinjhari, Katni-483501. Venket Building Lalita Bhawan, Sawarkar Ward, Katni-483501. Pan:Abhpn5492K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 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 12.02.2025 Which In Turn Arose From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

2. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty under section 271(1)(b) without opportunity the fact that assessment order was passed under section 143(3) & not 147 that too on return income. Henceforth, in lieu if judicial pronouncement of supra in similar facts the penalty under section 271(1)(b) may kindly

BANPRABHA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. NIRMAL CHHAYA, BEHIND BLOCK OFFICE, KHUTEHI, REWA-486001,REWA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

271 , section 271A, 22 [ section 271AA,] section 271B 23[, section 271BA], 24 [ section 271BB,] section 271C , 25[ section 271CA , ] section 27 1D, section 271E, 26 [ section 271F, 27 [ section 271FA,] 28 [ section 271FB,] 3 Banprabha Real Estate P Ltd. 29 [ section 271G,]] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub -section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section

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 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ hereinafter) respectively by the Assessing Officer (AO) for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. The appeals arising allied issues, were posted for hearing and, accordingly, heard together, and are being disposed of per a common order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos. 60 & 61/Jab/2021

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 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ hereinafter) respectively by the Assessing Officer (AO) for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. The appeals arising allied issues, were posted for hearing and, accordingly, heard together, and are being disposed of per a common order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos. 60 & 61/Jab/2021

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

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

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 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