PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reads as under:- “A search and seizure

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reads as under:- “A search and seizure

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reads as under:- “A search and seizure

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reads as under:- “A search and seizure

ASHOKA TUBEWELL BORING ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

u/s 271(1)(c) of the\nAct for AY 2014-15 & AY 2015-16 is concerned we find that Id.\nCIT(A) has deleted the penalty observing as follows (relevant\nextract):\n\"It has been contended by the Appellant that the\nimpugned penalty has been imposed merely on the basis\nof estimated addition and that taxes were paid

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. SUBHASH PD. YADAV, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for concealment of income”. 5. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter imposed a penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty order is a very brief order, which reads as under:- “A search and seizure operation u/s

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

seizure and survey operation u/s 132 of the Act and 133A of the Act, conducted on the business premises of Nand Kumar Prasad Sah and other related concerns on 17th September, 2020, and assessee was also subjected to search and certain incriminating material / loose paper / tally data were found. Pursuant to the of search, notice u/s 153A

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

seizure and survey operation u/s 132 of the Act and 133A of the Act, conducted on the business premises of Nand Kumar Prasad Sah and other related concerns on 17th September, 2020, and assessee was also subjected to search and certain incriminating material / loose paper / tally data were found. Pursuant to the of search, notice u/s 153A

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

seizure and survey operation u/s 132 of the Act and 133A of the Act, conducted on the business premises of Nand Kumar Prasad Sah and other related concerns on 17th September, 2020, and assessee was also subjected to search and certain incriminating material / loose paper / tally data were found. Pursuant to the of search, notice u/s 153A

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

seizure and survey operation u/s 132 of the Act and 133A of the Act, conducted on the business premises of Nand Kumar Prasad Sah and other related concerns on 17th September, 2020, and assessee was also subjected to search and certain incriminating material / loose paper / tally data were found. Pursuant to the of search, notice u/s 153A

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

seizure and survey operation u/s 132 of the Act and 133A of the Act, conducted on the business premises of Nand Kumar Prasad Sah and other related concerns on 17th September, 2020, and assessee was also subjected to search and certain incriminating material / loose paper / tally data were found. Pursuant to the of search, notice u/s 153A

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

seizure and survey operation u/s 132 of the Act and 133A of the Act, conducted on the business premises of Nand Kumar Prasad Sah and other related concerns on 17th September, 2020, and assessee was also subjected to search and certain incriminating material / loose paper / tally data were found. Pursuant to the of search, notice u/s 153A

UMA KANT SINGH,PURNEA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

search and seizure on the Uma Kant Singh Group on 29.10.2020. Thereafter, an assessment order u/s 153A of the Act was passed on 31.03.2022. For the quantum matter, the assessee accepted the Ld. AO’s order and did not file any appeal, ostensibly to buy peace of mind. However, the Ld. AO proceeded to impose the impugned penalty u/s 271

UMA KANT SINGH,PURNEA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

search and seizure on the Uma Kant Singh Group on 29.10.2020. Thereafter, an assessment order u/s 153A of the Act was passed on 31.03.2022. For the quantum matter, the assessee accepted the Ld. AO’s order and did not file any appeal, ostensibly to buy peace of mind. However, the Ld. AO proceeded to impose the impugned penalty u/s 271

UMA KANT SINGH,PURNEA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

search and seizure on the Uma Kant Singh Group on 29.10.2020. Thereafter, an assessment order u/s 153A of the Act was passed on 31.03.2022. For the quantum matter, the assessee accepted the Ld. AO’s order and did not file any appeal, ostensibly to buy peace of mind. However, the Ld. AO proceeded to impose the impugned penalty u/s 271

UMA KANT SINGH,PURNEA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

search and seizure on the Uma Kant Singh Group on 29.10.2020. Thereafter, an assessment order u/s 153A of the Act was passed on 31.03.2022. For the quantum matter, the assessee accepted the Ld. AO’s order and did not file any appeal, ostensibly to buy peace of mind. However, the Ld. AO proceeded to impose the impugned penalty u/s 271

UMA KANT SINGH,PURNEA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear in response to the single notice fixing the date for hearing and is seen to have not filed any submission also in response to the said notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to confirm the penalty levied by the Ld. AO. We find an identical pattern in other appeals also of a single notice being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for which there was seen to be no response from the side of the assessee and thereafter, the penalty imposed in all the

search and seizure on the Uma Kant Singh Group on 29.10.2020. Thereafter, an assessment order u/s 153A of the Act was passed on 31.03.2022. For the quantum matter, the assessee accepted the Ld. AO’s order and did not file any appeal, ostensibly to buy peace of mind. However, the Ld. AO proceeded to impose the impugned penalty u/s 271

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order