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

4). 25.01.2016 Demand notice u/s 156 was issued to the assessee giving effect to the order of amount ₹2,13,63,076/- 17/18th Jan. Settlement Commission had withdrawn Immunity from penalty and 2018 prosecution against the assessee 30.07.2018 Penalty order passed against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the act Imposing penalty leviable @ 100% amounting

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

4). 25.01.2016 Demand notice u/s 156 was issued to the assessee giving effect to the order of amount ₹2,13,63,076/- 17/18th Jan. Settlement Commission had withdrawn Immunity from penalty and 2018 prosecution against the assessee 30.07.2018 Penalty order passed against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the act Imposing penalty leviable @ 100% amounting

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LTD,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

4). 25.01.2016 Demand notice u/s 156 was issued to the assessee giving effect to the order of amount ₹2,13,63,076/- 17/18th Jan. Settlement Commission had withdrawn Immunity from penalty and 2018 prosecution against the assessee 30.07.2018 Penalty order passed against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the act Imposing penalty leviable @ 100% amounting

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

4). 25.01.2016 Demand notice u/s 156 was issued to the assessee giving effect to the order of amount ₹2,13,63,076/- 17/18th Jan. Settlement Commission had withdrawn Immunity from penalty and 2018 prosecution against the assessee 30.07.2018 Penalty order passed against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the act Imposing penalty leviable @ 100% amounting

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

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

4). The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) on the total undisclosed income.", "held": "The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, and with the undisclosed income being voluntarily disclosed and accepted by the AO, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. The return filed under Section

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 132(1) and Survey Operations u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter

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

BISHWANATH PRASAD,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

BISHWANATH PRASAD,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

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

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

section (4) has not been followed while passing the penalty order which is against the intention of legislature behind the introduction of new regime of penalty is to create less litigation environment. It is well settled law that substantive right accrue to the applicant should not be defeated citing the procedural defects which is capable of being cured

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

section (4) has not been followed while passing the penalty order which is against the intention of legislature behind the introduction of new regime of penalty is to create less litigation environment. It is well settled law that substantive right accrue to the applicant should not be defeated citing the procedural defects which is capable of being cured

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

section (4) has not been followed while passing the penalty order which is against the intention of legislature behind the introduction of new regime of penalty is to create less litigation environment. It is well settled law that substantive right accrue to the applicant should not be defeated citing the procedural defects which is capable of being cured

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

section (4) has not been followed while passing the penalty order which is against the intention of legislature behind the introduction of new regime of penalty is to create less litigation environment. It is well settled law that substantive right accrue to the applicant should not be defeated citing the procedural defects which is capable of being cured

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

section (4) has not been followed while passing the penalty order which is against the intention of legislature behind the introduction of new regime of penalty is to create less litigation environment. It is well settled law that substantive right accrue to the applicant should not be defeated citing the procedural defects which is capable of being cured

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

section (4) has not been followed while passing the penalty order which is against the intention of legislature behind the introduction of new regime of penalty is to create less litigation environment. It is well settled law that substantive right accrue to the applicant should not be defeated citing the procedural defects which is capable of being cured

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for allegation non-compliance to the provision of section 142(1) of the Income- tax Act which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts of the case. 4

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for allegation non-compliance to the provision of section 142(1) of the Income- tax Act which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts of the case. 4