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) of the Act, no penalty under the said statutory provision was called for in the hands of the assessee company. 36. Apropos the levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act based on the addition /disallowance made by the AO in the backdrop of the general provisions of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee company

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

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

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

u/s 277(1)(b). Therefore, sub-clause (a) of section 275(1) is not applicable. Consequently, the penalty outer dated 27.07.2015 passed by AO is time barred. 3.7 in view of above explanation, it is requested that the penalty order may kindly be quashed being time barred," 9.2 In the instant case, the penalty has been imposed for non-compliance

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 277(1)(b). Therefore, sub-clause (a) of section 275(1) is not applicable. Consequently, the penalty outer dated 27.07.2015 passed by AO is time barred. 3.7 in view of above explanation, it is requested that the penalty order may kindly be quashed being time barred," 9.2 In the instant case, the penalty has been imposed for non-compliance

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 277(1)(b). Therefore, sub-clause (a) of section 275(1) is not applicable. Consequently, the penalty outer dated 27.07.2015 passed by AO is time barred. 3.7 in view of above explanation, it is requested that the penalty order may kindly be quashed being time barred," 9.2 In the instant case, the penalty has been imposed for non-compliance

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

section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with 19 Khomram Chandrawanshi (HUF) Vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur 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

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

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

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 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

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

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 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

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. 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

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