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

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

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

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

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 COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), 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 LTD,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DY.. C.I.T.-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 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

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

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

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.)

5. Accordingly, the appeal of the Appellant for AY 2016-17 stands partly allowed.” 9. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) to the extent he had vacated the penalty that the A.O. had imposed as regards the addition of Rs.8.84 crore (supra) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 10. We have heard

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.)

5. Accordingly, the appeal of the Appellant for AY 2016-17 stands partly allowed.” 9. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) to the extent he had vacated the penalty that the A.O. had imposed as regards the addition of Rs.8.84 crore (supra) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 10. We have heard

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

u/s 271(1)(b) as per the time period contemplated in clause (a) of sub- section (1) to Section 275, i.e six months from the end of the month in which appellate order was received – ITAT order dated 17,12,2014, expired on 31.07.2015, therefore, the order dated 27.07.2015 imposing the aforesaid penalty was well within the limitation period

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

u/s 271(1)(b) as per the time period contemplated in clause (a) of sub- section (1) to Section 275, i.e six months from the end of the month in which appellate order was received – ITAT order dated 17,12,2014, expired on 31.07.2015, therefore, the order dated 27.07.2015 imposing the aforesaid penalty was well within the limitation period

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

u/s 271(1)(b) as per the time period contemplated in clause (a) of sub- section (1) to Section 275, i.e six months from the end of the month in which appellate order was received – ITAT order dated 17,12,2014, expired on 31.07.2015, therefore, the order dated 27.07.2015 imposing the aforesaid penalty was well within the limitation period

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

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