RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order. First, we take up the ITA. No. 301/LKW/2025 (Quantum Appeal), pertaining

ACIT-2(1)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. UP STATE YARN COMPANY LIMITED , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit-2(1)(1) Up State Yarn Company V. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Limited Uttar Pradesh-208001. 1 Smith Square, 14/72, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh- 208001. Pan:Aaacu1674K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 11 2024 O R D E R

penalty amounting to Rs.70,59,100/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, taking adverse view regarding addition of Rs.2,07,68,167/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The aforesaid amount of Rs.2,07,68,167/- was added by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED MAHOLI AYYUBI CHAMBER, RANIGANJ, LAKHIMPUR KHERI-262001,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SITAPUR-NEW, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c) by the Income Tax Officer, Sitapur. The grounds of appeal preferred are as under:- “(1) That the penalty notice issued u/s

KAPIL KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BAREILLY , BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

section 271(1)(c) by the ld. AO on 17.03.2022 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2015-16. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. BECAUSE requisite satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s

PRIME PRODUCTS LIMITED,KANPUR vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 2(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Prime Products Ltd., 87/8, Kalpi Vs. The Dy. Cit, Road, Kanpur Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur Pan: Aaacp8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer On 23.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In Law, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law. 2 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Upholding Action Of Learned Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 94,000/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 That On The Facts & In Law, The Notice Issued For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Dated 14/02/2020 Is Vague & Defective Since, It Does Not Specify The Limb Under Which Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Was Initiated. 4 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Has Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessee Had Offered An Explanation. The Penalty Proceedings & The Consequent Order Are Invalid & Void Ab Initio As The Same Were Initiated & Levied Solely On The Basis Of An Affidavit Without Independent Evidence Of Concealment.

penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied by the ld. Assessing Officer on 23.01.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (APPEALS), NFAC U/S

M/S JUPITER TRADELINKS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY,. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Jupiter Tradelinks Private Vs. Dcit, Limited, Dobiriyal Complex Gole Central Circle-1, Lucknow Market Mahanagar, Lucknow Pan: Aaccj0525G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.11.2024 Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 4.06.2019, Passed Under Section 271(1)(C). The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Both Law & Facts Of The Case By Confirming The Penalty Of 2,20,41,900/- Levied By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That: A. The Appellant Has Neither Concealed The Particulars Of Its Income Nor Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income; B. There Was No Failure On The Part Of The Appellant In Truly & Fully Disclosing All Material Facts C. Mere Disallowance Or Rejection Of The Claim Or Stand Taken By The Appellant Based On Reasonable Interpretation Of The Law Is Not Sufficient To Attract Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) 3. The Amount Of Penalty Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Invalid, Excessive & Unreasonable.”

section 271(1)(c). The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in both law and facts of the case by confirming the penalty of 2,20,41,900/- levied by the assessing officer. 2. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that: a. the appellant has neither concealed the particulars

AJAY KUMAR NIRWAN,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Moreover, the order of learned CIT(A) has also been passed ex-parte qua the assessee. The learned CIT(A) has also not passed a speaking order explaining how this case is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s

SHRI ROHIT AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(3), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rohit Agarwal V. Ito-3(3) Room No.108, 1St Floor Kanpur 49/52, General Ganj Radha Kripa, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abapa2045C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 01 2025 O R D E R

penalty order dated 28.03.2017 of the AO passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee ITA No.352/LKW/2019 Page 3 of 8 preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of non-compliance by the Assessee, vide order dated 23.04.2018. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 144 of the Act dated 27-03- 2022; ii. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 144 of the Act dated 27-03- 2022; ii. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated

MAKASHOOD ASHARAF,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, LAKHIMPUR KHERI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Makashood Asharaf, 98-Moh. The Income Tax Officer, Seikh Sarain, Kheri Town, Distt.- Vs. Range-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri- Lakhimpur Kheri-1 (U.P.) 1 Pan:Bkwpa9250R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.07.2022 Upholding The Penalty Levied Under Section 271B By The Ito-3(4), Lakhimpur-1 Vide His Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

u/s 271B of I. T. Act is illegal and liable to be quashed.” And prayed that the same had been raised at this stage as this was a purely legal ground that went to the very root of the case. The assessee placed reliance on the following cases for proposition that he was entitled to raise the fresh legal ground

ABDUL HAMEED CHIKWA,KANPUR vs. ACIT, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

u/s 143(3) and another against penalty proceedings\nu/s 271(1)(c), are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner\nof Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur [hereinafter referred as to “Ld.\nCIT(A)"] dated 25.10.2016, pertaining to the assessment year\n2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these two appeals are\nhereby disposed of through this consolidated order

ABDUL HAMEED CHIKWA,KANPUR vs. ACIT, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

u/s 143(3) and another against penalty proceedings\nu/s 271(1)(c), are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner\nof Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur [hereinafter referred as to “Ld.\nCIT(A)"] dated 25.10.2016, pertaining to the assessment year\n2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these two appeals are\nhereby disposed of through this consolidated order

MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the act 7. Because of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.ao has erred in law and on facts in imposing penalty as the addition prescribed u/s

MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the act 7. Because of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.ao has erred in law and on facts in imposing penalty as the addition prescribed u/s

SHRI MADAN LAL JAIN,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (NOW ITO-1(2)), KANPUR

In the result, these appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the act 7. Because of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.ao has erred in law and on facts in imposing penalty as the addition prescribed u/s