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

271B of the Act can be independently initiated, therefore, for the said reason, the time limit for imposing the same can safely be related to clause (c) of sub-section (1) to Section 275 of the Act. However, as in the present case before us, the penalty in question, i.e. 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

271B of the Act can be independently initiated, therefore, for the said reason, the time limit for imposing the same can safely be related to clause (c) of sub-section (1) to Section 275 of the Act. However, as in the present case before us, the penalty in question, i.e. 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

271B of the Act can be independently initiated, therefore, for the said reason, the time limit for imposing the same can safely be related to clause (c) of sub-section (1) to Section 275 of the Act. However, as in the present case before us, the penalty in question, i.e. u/s. 271

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

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 43/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495006 Pan: Aadcs2066E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

271, Section 271A, Section 271B[section 272A, Section 272AA or Section 272BB], (iii) Section 272,Section 272B or Section 273 as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April 1989, in respect of any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April 1988 or any earlier assessment year. Thus Section 246(1)(I) demarcates

SMT. LAXMI DEVI CHANDWANI, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chandwani V Income Tax Officer Agrasen Chowk S Ward-1(1), Bilaspur Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh-495 001. Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Agmpc 8368H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.R. Rao, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.02.2023 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2014-15, Arises From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.09.2022. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271B Imposed By Learned Assessing Officer.”

section 271B is not attracted in case where no account has been maintained and instead recourse u/s 271A can be taken. It was the submission of the Ld. AR that since it is the fact that there were books of account maintained by the assessee which was observed by Ld. Assessing Officer also, therefore, in 4 terms of judgment

M/S VIJENDRA SINGH & ASSOCIATES,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BILASPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.113/Rpr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) M/S Vijendra Singh & Associates, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur C/O-Bedford Earthmovers Inc. Rajeev Gandhi Chowk, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur (Cg) Pan No. :Aaaav 6865 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

271B. Sustained. In the result; the Appeal is dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee is in further appeal to challenge the findings in order of Ld CIT(A). 5 Ld. AR before us reiterated its submission as were made before the Ld CIT(A) . It was the submission of the Ld AR of the appellant that the assessee AOP was following

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 143, 145 & 147/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 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

Section 44AB of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 271B dated 27.07.2015 imposed penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on the assessee. 5. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. For the sake of clarity, observations of the CIT(Appeals) upholding the view taken by the A.O are culled

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 143, 145 & 147/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 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

Section 44AB of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 271B dated 27.07.2015 imposed penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on the assessee. 5. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. For the sake of clarity, observations of the CIT(Appeals) upholding the view taken by the A.O are culled

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 143, 145 & 147/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 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

Section 44AB of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 271B dated 27.07.2015 imposed penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on the assessee. 5. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. For the sake of clarity, observations of the CIT(Appeals) upholding the view taken by the A.O are culled

VAKRANGEE FOUNDATION, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vakrangee Foundation Vs Assessing Officer, 103, 1St Floor, Golden Park, Vip Exemption Circle, Estate, Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur (Cg) Raipur (Cg) Pan: Aaaav8441K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G.S.Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Parakash Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2023

section 44AB for getting Audit u/s 44AB are not applicable to charitable institutions. Prayed to delete the penalty. 2. That under the facts and the law, the learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271 B at Rs. 1,50,000/- by the learned AO for the reason that addition of Rs.8

PRAKASH BHANSALI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-4(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. 23/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Prakash Bhansali 11/1, Anop Diamonds, Bhansali Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (C.G) Pan : Addpb8997K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

section 271B. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, findings of the AO in the penalty order, as well as grounds of appeal. The AO has levied penalty u/s 271