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 under section 271(1)(b) arises out of the assessment, the two cases are taken up together for adjudication. The grounds of appeal in these two cases are as under:- ITA No.-128/JAB/2023 “1. That the Ld. Appellate authority CIT (Appeal) has grossly eared on facts and circumstances of the case to confirm the addition

SURAJ SINGH,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

271(1)(b), in the assessee’s words, ‘blind faith’ in his local consultant who, for reasons best known to him, did not represent the assessee, as agreed to. I shall take up the two penalties in seriatim. 4.3 The non-furnishing of the return u/s. 139(1) is explained to be due to the assessee’s income being

SURAJ SINGH,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REWA

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

271(1)(b), in the assessee’s words, ‘blind faith’ in his local consultant who, for reasons best known to him, did not represent the assessee, as agreed to. I shall take up the two penalties in seriatim. 4.3 The non-furnishing of the return u/s. 139(1) is explained to be due to the assessee’s income being

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

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: -

section 271(1)(b) may kindly be deleted. 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case ld CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that assessment order was bad in law. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of the appeal.” (B) The only grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal is against

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

section 271(1)(b) indicates A.O. is required to be satisfied in the course of any proceedings under the Act for default before levying penalty. Assessment order passed on 16/10/2019 (P 14 - 18) does not indicate any satisfaction recorded for levy of penalty u/s

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

section 271(1)(b) indicates A.O. is required to be satisfied in the course of any proceedings under the Act for default before levying penalty. Assessment order passed on 16/10/2019 (P 14 - 18) does not indicate any satisfaction recorded for levy of penalty u/s

SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR RAI,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2 , KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of ld. NFAC/CIT(A), New Delhi dated 23.09.2022. 2. The assesse has raised the following grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. Order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal invalid

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(1)(b

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

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

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.

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 and the issue involved is also identical, all these appeals are decided

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.

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 and the issue involved is also identical, all these appeals are decided

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.

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 and the issue involved is also identical, all these appeals are decided

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.

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 and the issue involved is also identical, all these appeals are decided

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.

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 and the issue involved is also identical, all these appeals are decided

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.

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 and the issue involved is also identical, all these appeals are decided

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