DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

u/s 274 RWs 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Thus, It is apparent that notwithstanding the defective notice, the assessee was fully aware of the reason as to why the Assessing Officer sought to impose penalty. Thus, significant features of the case in hand are that penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had although issued

M/S SANJEEV CHIRANIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sanjeev Chirania Huf, Ito-28(3)(1), 301, Sona Chambers, 507/509 Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Station Commercial Marine Lines – East, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 002. Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan No. Aarhs 4527 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

u/s 144 of the Act.It indicate that the Appellant had no intention of filing indicate that the Appellant had no intention of filing indicate that the Appellant had no intention of filing return of income till he was offered an opportunity in the return of income till he was offered an opportunity in the return of income till

PREMJI BHURLAL GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RANG 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Premji Bhurlal Gala Addl. Cit Range 24(1), B-301, Water Ford, Cd Mumbai Barfiwala Road Juhu Fally Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai - 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla 400058 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Satish Kumar, Ld. A. Rs. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Act, On The Basis Of Search & Survey Action Under Section 132 Of The Act Carried Out In The Case Of M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Wherein The Statement Of The Partner In M/S. Evergreen Enterprises, Mr. Nilesh Bharani Was Recorded Under Section 132(4) Of The Act, Unearthing An Undisclosed Activity, 2 Premji Bhurlal Gala

144 (B) of the Act, the AO has not recorded clear cut satisfaction with regard to the initiation of the penalty proceedings under Section 271 (D) of the Act and thus, attracts the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Jaya Laxmi Rice Mills (2015) 379 ITR 521 (SC) wherein

VINEET THAKAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO(41)(4)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

144 of the Act was completed on 27.03.2022 determining total income at Rs.135,23,021/- comprising of salary of Rs.65,37,783/-, interest of Rs.9,97,380/- and Time Deposit of Rs.59,87,858/-, which was treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment

SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

144 read with section 147 of the Act made an addition of Rs.77,18,990/-. Meanwhile, since the assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Act were initiated and show cause notice u/s 274 read with section

SANKARLINGAM SANKAR THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR GANESH SHANKAR,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

144 read with section 147 of the Act made an addition of Rs.77,18,990/-. Meanwhile, since the assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Act were initiated and show cause notice u/s 274 read with section

SHYAM KUMAR SADASHIVAN PILLAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act as the assessee had deliberately and willfully failed to comply for the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act vide dated 28-10-2022,22-12-2022, 10-01- 2023 and 25- 01-2023 for the A.Y 2015-16. Demand notice is attached herewith.” 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal

RANJIT PATHAK,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

144 of the Act and made\nan addition of Rs.55,97,095/- and initiated penalty proceedings\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The ld\nAO also initiated penalty u/s

RANJIT PATHAK ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

144 of the Act and made\nan addition of Rs.55,97,095/- and initiated penalty proceedings\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The ld\nAO also initiated penalty u/s

PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

u/s 274 read with section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Both Notice of demand and penalty proceedings are further followed by subsequent communication. Therefore, it is merely not an error but for all practical purposes, the ld AO passed the final assessment order instead of Draft Assessment order. In penultimate paragraph also ld AO mentions section 144

ALOK JOSHI,UTTRAKHAND vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

144.\n3.3. The present appeal before us is in respect of imposition of\npenalty of Rs.50,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b), vide order dated 22.06.2011. In\nthe said penalty proceedings, notices were issued by the ld. Assessing\nOfficer, which could not be attended by the assessee owing to he and\nhis family members not available in India. Thus, penalty

JANSEVA MAJOOR SAHAKARI SANSHTHA MARYADIT,MAHIM vs. ITO 22(1)(6), LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

144 did not bring out as to whether the Penalty was initiated for concealment OR furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 3. On the facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the quantum addition was made purely on the estimated basis without finding as to concealment of income

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

144 read with section 144B of the IT Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 are sustained and the appellant has concealed its income. Therefore, the AO was right in initiating penalty u/s 271

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

144 read with section 144B of the IT Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 are sustained and the appellant has concealed its income. Therefore, the AO was right in initiating penalty u/s 271

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

144 read with section 144B of the IT Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 are sustained and the appellant has concealed its income. Therefore, the AO was right in initiating penalty u/s 271

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

144 read with section 144B of the IT Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 are sustained and the appellant has concealed its income. Therefore, the AO was right in initiating penalty u/s 271

RAKESH JAIN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF BHAWARLAL SHRILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -1 PALGHAR , THANE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as the “Act”) amounting to Rs. 50,000/- for non-compliance of notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the non-compliance was because of the fact that the appellant legal heir was not aware of such notices as such