DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD., RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

section (1) of Sec.139 for filing of the assessee’s return of income, was at the stage of filing of the return of income/revised return of income by the assessee company a possible and plausible view, thus, the same in our view would not attract penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 22. We, thus, not being able

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD., RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

section (1) of Sec.139 for filing of the assessee’s return of income, was at the stage of filing of the return of income/revised return of income by the assessee company a possible and plausible view, thus, the same in our view would not attract penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 22. We, thus, not being able

PRAKASH DAVARA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COIMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prakash Davara, 08, Gitanjali Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupd0169K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that now when the assessee had voluntarily offered an amount of Rs.30 lacs (supra) in his return of income that was filed in compliance to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 06.08.2012 there was no justification for the A.O to have imposed penalty as regards the said amount

VIKAS SHARMA, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 256/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vikas Sharma Quarter No.6-A, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 006 Pan : Ddcps1720P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

13 Vikas Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai Tribunal that had deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by the A.O and had, inter alia, observed that the failure of the AO to strike off the irrelevant default in the notice issued under Sec. 274 of the Act, which is in a standard proforma clearly indicates

SMT. DIPALBEN MANISH PATEL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 215/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Dipalben Manish Patel 4-502, Near Maharashtra Mandal, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Alupp3271B

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was liable to be vacated. For the sake of clarity the observations of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in its aforesaid order are culled out as under: “4. We have carefully examined the record as well as duly considered the rival contentions. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT

SANTOSH JAIN, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

271(1)(b) of the Act was provided in Section 275(1)(c) 9 Santosh Jain Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 144, 146 & 148/RPR/2023 of the Act; therefore, the penalty imposed by the A.O. vide his order dated 27.07.2015 was beyond the stipulated period and barred by limitation. On a specific query by the Bench that now when

SANTOSH JAIN, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

271(1)(b) of the Act was provided in Section 275(1)(c) 9 Santosh Jain Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 144, 146 & 148/RPR/2023 of the Act; therefore, the penalty imposed by the A.O. vide his order dated 27.07.2015 was beyond the stipulated period and barred by limitation. On a specific query by the Bench that now when

SANTOSH JAIN, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

271(1)(b) of the Act was provided in Section 275(1)(c) 9 Santosh Jain Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 144, 146 & 148/RPR/2023 of the Act; therefore, the penalty imposed by the A.O. vide his order dated 27.07.2015 was beyond the stipulated period and barred by limitation. On a specific query by the Bench that now when

ASHOK KUMAR SINGH, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 150/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Singh P-10, Rishab Green City, Pulgaon, Durg-491 001 (C.G) Pan : Bcfps1394K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was liable to be vacated. For the sake of clarity the observations of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in its aforesaid order are culled out as under: “4. We have carefully examined the record as well as duly considered the rival contentions. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT

PRASHANT MANOHAR BHAGWAT, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 86/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prashant Manohar Bhagwat H. No.11, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Ahfpb6105K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh Kumar v. CIT[ 74], in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei[ 75]. According

KHOMRAM CHANDRAWANSHI (HUF), ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 165/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Khomram Chandrawanshi (Huf) House No.18, Ring Road Chowk, Krishnasakha Society, Rohinipuram, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan : Aakhk2082E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

13 Khomram Chandrawanshi (HUF) Vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur Manjunathja Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra), which in turn had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T. Ashok Pai Vs. CIT, 292 ITR 1 (SC) had approved the order of the Tribunal that had deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1)BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD., BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD.,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

THE DY. CIT- CIR.-1(1),, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFILDS LTD.,, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s