INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR RAWAT, JABALPUR

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

273B of the Act. 7.1.6 ………. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271D amounting to Rs. 15,50,000/- is not sustainable and is cancelled. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 It is clear, therefore, that the ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s appeal with reference to and on grounds

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

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

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: -

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act of Rs.10,000/-. The assessee’s appeal against the order levying penalty was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-compliance of notices by the assessee. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order of the Ld.CIT(A). (2.1) At the time of hearing, learned Counsel

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

273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of 20[clause (b) of sub-section (1) of] 21[ section 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

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 Act for each assessment year. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty, assessee(s) went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but did not succeed. Further aggrieved, the assessee(s) is now in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before

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 Act for each assessment year. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty, assessee(s) went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but did not succeed. Further aggrieved, the assessee(s) is now in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before

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 Act for each assessment year. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty, assessee(s) went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but did not succeed. Further aggrieved, the assessee(s) is now in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before

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 Act for each assessment year. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty, assessee(s) went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but did not succeed. Further aggrieved, the assessee(s) is now in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before

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 Act for each assessment year. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty, assessee(s) went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but did not succeed. Further aggrieved, the assessee(s) is now in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before

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 Act for each assessment year. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty, assessee(s) went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but did not succeed. Further aggrieved, the assessee(s) is now in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before