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

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

250 of the I. T. Act 1961 is bad in law and in facts and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in conforming levy of penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- under section 271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both

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

250 of the I. T. Act 1961 is bad in law and in facts and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in conforming levy of penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- under section 271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both

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

250 of the I. T. Act 1961 is bad in law and in facts and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in conforming levy of penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- under section 271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both

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

250 of the I. T. Act 1961 is bad in law and in facts and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in conforming levy of penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- under section 271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both

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

250 of the I. T. Act 1961 is bad in law and in facts and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in conforming levy of penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- under section 271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both

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

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

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

250 dated 05/12/2023 erred in interpreting the case laws submitted by the appellant. The Honourable CIT(A) in the Order stated that the above-mentioned case laws are not applicable to the facts of this case due to two primarily reasons: i. that both the appellant and the AO have acknowledged that the income declared by the assessee are covered

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: -

250 of the IT Act 1961 is bad in law on facts and liable to be quashed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred on facts and in law in conforming levy of penalty of Rs. 5,45,849/- under section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act ie the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both

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.

250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 272A(1)(d) without considering the citations given to prove the reasonable cause for non compliance to notices issued u/s 142(1). Vivek Kumar Singh. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not accepting

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

250 on 05.03.2024 for A.Y.2013-14 by CIT(A), Abad\ndismissing the appeal for late filing by 105 days and not taking into consideration\nthe circumstances of death of the main partner of the firm, who manages all\nonline work with email ID and Password and other partners were not aware of\nthe online working also email id and password

VISHAL DATT,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(1)(c) of the Act on 21/06/2017 and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,10,964/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A) against aforesaid order dated 21/06/2017. Vide impugned appellate order dated 15/04/2025, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for want of prosecution. The order of learned

AVNISH KUMAR GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Center, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ for short) for assessment year (AY) 2009-10 vide his separate orders of even date (i.e., 22.09.2021). 2.1 Explaining the assessee’s case, Shri Purohit, the ld. Sr. Counsel, would submit that an ex parte assessment stands made in the instant

AVNISH KUMAR GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, REWA, REWA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Center, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ for short) for assessment year (AY) 2009-10 vide his separate orders of even date (i.e., 22.09.2021). 2.1 Explaining the assessee’s case, Shri Purohit, the ld. Sr. Counsel, would submit that an ex parte assessment stands made in the instant

GANPAT SINGH PATEL,BALAGHAT vs. ITO WARD, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Ganpat Singh Patel V. Ito Ward, Balaghat Prem Nagar, Balaghat H.O. Railway Station Road, Balaghat, Balaghat, 481001, Balaghat-481001. Madhya Pradesh. Pan:Aeopp9849L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Adv Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 08 2025 O R D E R

u/s 250 and same is bad in law and null and void. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case the learning C.I.T. has erred in not giving the opportunity of being heard to appellant. 5. The penalty under section 271

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

250 dated 18.06.2024 confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- levied under sec. 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 21/09/2022 for A.Yr. 2016-17 is unjustified, unwarranted, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case