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)

5. 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.” A.Y. 2018-19 Amit Kumar Yadav “1. That 1 That the learned CIT Appeal has erred in law and on facts of the case in refusing to Condone the delay in filing the appeal

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)

5. 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.” A.Y. 2018-19 Amit Kumar Yadav “1. That 1 That the learned CIT Appeal has erred in law and on facts of the case in refusing to Condone the delay in filing the appeal

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28.06.2010 amounting to Rs.2,72,850/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. On further appeal, Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty observing as under:- 7.1.3.DECISION:-“I have carefully considered the submission put forth including the case laws relied upon & the documents 3 | P a g e J.P.Tobacco Product Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT furnished

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

5. We find that the page no. 4 below para 3.1, the Assessing Officer has also mentioned “Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is being initiated separately on this issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. We also find that the para no. 7 of the penalty order reads as under: “7. In view

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 148(1) is a para materia provision, casting, like-wise, an obligation to file the return of income, which is rather more compelling inasmuch as in such a case the Revenue has a reason to believe that the assessee’s income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. No wonder, then, that the AO refers to both the incidents while

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 148(1) is a para materia provision, casting, like-wise, an obligation to file the return of income, which is rather more compelling inasmuch as in such a case the Revenue has a reason to believe that the assessee’s income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. No wonder, then, that the AO refers to both the incidents while

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)

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. The facts of the case

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)

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. The facts of the case

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 proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 4. It is borne out from the record that the assessment under section 153C of the Act in the case of the assessee is the outcome of search initiated under section 132 of the Act in Bansal Group of cases

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

u/s 271(1)(b) without appreciating the fact that no notice of hearing and fixation of case was ever served to the assessee. 7.2 This allegation of the assessee is baseless. The Assessing Officer issued several notices at the address of the assessee which was available with department during the assessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer. The Assessment order dated

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

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

5. The order u/s 263 has been passed on 27/02/2019 wherein assessment framed u/s 143 r.w.s. 147 of I.T. Act 1961 on 20/06/2016 has been set-aside to make fresh assessment by holding that the order passed by A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in respect to following two matters. a) Interest paid without deduction

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

5. The order u/s 263 has been passed on 27/02/2019 wherein assessment framed u/s 143 r.w.s. 147 of I.T. Act 1961 on 20/06/2016 has been set-aside to make fresh assessment by holding that the order passed by A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in respect to following two matters. a) Interest paid without deduction

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

5. The provision of Section 273B reads as under:- [Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. 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

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE , SAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for concealment of income/inaccurate particulars of fringe benefit of tax (FBT). The issue involved in both the appeals is ITA No.183 & 184/Jab/2018 J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.Ltd. vs DCIT common, therefore both the appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE , SAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for concealment of income/inaccurate particulars of fringe benefit of tax (FBT). The issue involved in both the appeals is ITA No.183 & 184/Jab/2018 J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.Ltd. vs DCIT common, therefore both the appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order

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: -

section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act ie the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and ‘in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO by simply rejecting the application for condonation in filling appeal and hence CIT(A) order is arbitrarily unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 5

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