ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPRATIVE BANK LIMTED , CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

addition made in assessment, no penalty is exigible u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961. The relevant head note of decision is reproduced hereunder for reference. "Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Deletion of penalty - Tribunal deleted penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) on assessee - Held, when appeal had been admitted in quantum proceedings by High Court, then that itself

ACIT, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DIST CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

addition made in assessment, no penalty is exigible u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961. The relevant head note of decision is reproduced hereunder for reference. "Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Deletion of penalty Tribunal deleted penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) on assessee Held, when appeal had been admitted in quantum proceedings by High Court, then that itself

M/S NAVAL K AGARWAL,NAGPUR vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

additional requirement for non [fraction of penal provision u/s '271AAA of the Act in comparison to this u/s 271 (l)© is that besides specifying the manner in which the admitted an undisclosed income has been derived, the assessee will also have to substantiate this manner. In view of this relative study of both the provisions hen we go through

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. M/S. VIGNAHARTA INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

addition. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 29-07-2013 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) levied penalty of Rs.28,45,624/-. Aggrieved against the order levying penalty, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income

CHANDRA SURESH KOTHARI,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

additional income of Rs.24,00,000/- in the computation of income filed with the return, hence proceedings for penalty under section 271(1)(c) 5 ITA 125 & 126/NAG/2021_ Chandra Suresh Kothari Vs DCIT of the Act are to be initiated”. Further, the Final Show-cause notice issued on 29/12/2016 alongwith the Assessment order clearly mentions the words “Whereas

CHANDRA SURESH KOTHARI,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

additional income of Rs.24,00,000/- in the computation of income filed with the return, hence proceedings for penalty under section 271(1)(c) 5 ITA 125 & 126/NAG/2021_ Chandra Suresh Kothari Vs DCIT of the Act are to be initiated”. Further, the Final Show-cause notice issued on 29/12/2016 alongwith the Assessment order clearly mentions the words “Whereas

M/S FUEL CORPORATION OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

additional requirement for non [fraction of penal provision u/s '271AAA of the Act in comparison to this u/s 271(1)(c) is that besides specifying the manner in which the admitted an undisclosed income has been derived, the assessee will also have to substantiate this manner. In view of this relative study of both the provisions hen we go through

SHRI RAJESH MOOLCHAND DAYARAMANI,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-8,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority, wherein, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee feeling aggrieved filed appeal before us. 6. Before us, the learned Counsel for assessee submitted by way of written submission, which is reproduced herein below:– “A) On merits additions

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the\ngrounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors,\n(ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged\nhundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index\nnumbers with the Income-tax Department

DCIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S TRISTER RETAIL CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, department’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in light of discussions in the Assessment Order and therefore, the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was a valid notice in view of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Ventura Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City-II [2020] 117 taxmann.com

VIKESH CHATURBHUJ AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD -4(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, but, the penalty order does not disclose which particulars filed by the assessee are found to be inaccurate by the Assessing Officer resulting into the addition

BHAKTVATSAL SADGURU YOGIRAJ VASANTRAO GOPALRAO GHONGE MAHARAJ TRUST,WARDHA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

addition of income, question of penalty under section 271 (1) (c) does not arise.” 3. When the case was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even there is no adjournment application either. However, the Bench is of the view that the appeal filed by the assessee can be disposed off qua the assessee and after hearing

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the grounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors, (ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged hundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index numbers with the Income-tax Department

GIRDHARILAL MOTILAL AGRAWAL,BULDANA vs. ITO WARD-1, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

u/s. 271(1)(c) explanation 2 & 3 for tax on total income assessed.” 9. The Assessing Officer has not clearly established whether the penalty has been levied on account of concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned A.R. submitted that penalty show cause notice was also vague and relevant limb was not marked/ struck

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the\ngrounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors,\n(ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged\nhundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index\nnumbers with the Income-tax Department

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the\ngrounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors,\n(ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged\nhundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index\nnumbers with the Income-tax Department

SHRI AJAYKUMAR BATRA,,BANDARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 7,, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19/Nag/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010–11 Ajaykumar Batra, Prop. M/S. Saibaba Construction, Rajgopalchari Ward, Bandara-441904. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Abjpa9287H बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Kailash M. Jogani, Ca & Shri Mukesh R. Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri U. U. Kasar, Jt. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Ii, Nagpur Dated 22.09.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law. 2. The Act Of Learned A.O. Levying The Penalty Of Rs.16,97,544/- U/S 271(1)(C) Is Unjustified. 3. The Learned A.O. Erred In Charging Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) For Concealment Of Income. But There Is No Concealment At All. The Income Offered U/S. 133A Was Jut To Cover Up The Discrepancies, Avoid Further Litigation & To Buy A Peace. 4. Any Other Ground Shall Be Prayed At The Time Of Hearing.”

u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee filed the “revised” return of income declaring total income at Rs.1,46,76,192/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee offered an additional income of Rs.50 lakhs. In the result, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,46,76,192/-. Hence, considering the said additional income

SHRI PRAKASH JIWANDAS WANJARI,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

addition u/s 68 or 69 of the Act. 2.9 The AO in the original assessment accepted the contention of the appellant, the Addl./Joint CIT now has initiated and levied the penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 just to penalize the genuine and unintentional mistake of the appellant even though due to this transaction of the appellant