SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DY.. C.I.T.-1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant

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

142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant

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

142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

142 TTJ 1 (Del) and it is held that penalty for furnishing such inaccurate particulars of expenses attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, regarding imposition of penalty against addition of Rs.11385.80 lakhs made by disallowing provisions for leave 14 South Eastern Coalfields Group of cases (On penalty) encashment it is not the case of the appellant

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the case is related to AY 2017-18, therefore, the penalty provisions of section 271AAC are applicable. Accordingly, the assessment order 7 Shri Vijay Kumar Patel, Raipur vs PCIT, Raipur-1 dated 26.03.2022, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, the same is set aside

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

142(1)(ii) 12-02-2002 20-02-2002 25-02-2002 Non compliance Also, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2000 was not complied with by the assessee. 6. Considering the non-compliance of the assessee to the notices issued during assessment proceedings, the A.O. called upon him to explain why the penalty u/s. 271

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

142(1)(ii) 12-02-2002 20-02-2002 25-02-2002 Non compliance Also, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2000 was not complied with by the assessee. 6. Considering the non-compliance of the assessee to the notices issued during assessment proceedings, the A.O. called upon him to explain why the penalty u/s. 271

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

142(1)(ii) 12-02-2002 20-02-2002 25-02-2002 Non compliance Also, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2000 was not complied with by the assessee. 6. Considering the non-compliance of the assessee to the notices issued during assessment proceedings, the A.O. called upon him to explain why the penalty u/s. 271

SHRI SHRI KHUSHIRAM KUNDNANI,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 278 To 284/Rpr/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2006-2007 To 2012-2013 Khushiram Kundnani, E-2, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G) Pan : Aevpk 3467 J .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G) ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax–Appeals(33), Delhi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt 14/06/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Stemmed Out Of A Penalty Order Of Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Central Circle, Raipur [For Short “Dcit”] Dt 27/01/2014 Passed U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act, The Appellant Assessee Filed This Appeal Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 12

271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person— (a) [***] (b) has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or under sub-section (2) of section 115WE or under sub-section

SHRI SHRI KHUSHIRAM KUNDNANI,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 278 To 284/Rpr/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2006-2007 To 2012-2013 Khushiram Kundnani, E-2, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G) Pan : Aevpk 3467 J .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G) ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax–Appeals(33), Delhi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt 14/06/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Stemmed Out Of A Penalty Order Of Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Central Circle, Raipur [For Short “Dcit”] Dt 27/01/2014 Passed U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act, The Appellant Assessee Filed This Appeal Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 12

271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person— (a) [***] (b) has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or under sub-section (2) of section 115WE or under sub-section

SHRI SHRI KHUSHIRAM KUNDNANI,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 278 To 284/Rpr/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2006-2007 To 2012-2013 Khushiram Kundnani, E-2, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G) Pan : Aevpk 3467 J .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G) ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench; Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax–Appeals(33), Delhi [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt 14/06/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Stemmed Out Of A Penalty Order Of Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Central Circle, Raipur [For Short “Dcit”] Dt 27/01/2014 Passed U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act, The Appellant Assessee Filed This Appeal Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 12

271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person— (a) [***] (b) has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or under sub-section (2) of section 115WE or under sub-section