PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the\nAct\" for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the\nAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.\n\nThe assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income. The Tribunal

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income. The Tribunal

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income. The Tribunal

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income. The Tribunal

JETHANAND ATMARAM DHANWANI,ADIPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Jethanand Atmaram Dhanwani Vs. Ito, Ward - 1 Plot No. 368, Wd – 2/B, Adipur – Kutch-370205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं.At/Pan/Gir No.: Afvpd8813Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/06/2025

274 r. w.s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the above, it is vivid that assessing officer, during the assessment proceedings, initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. JETHANAND A. DHANWANI 11. The penalty notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, specifies that penalty proceeding has been initiated on account

SHRI RAJNIKANT HARGOVINDDAS SANADIA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (3)(5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

274 read with section 271(1) (b), the appellant has submitted, that as he was in appeal against assessment order passed under section 144 read with section 147; penalty proceedings should be kept in abeyance. There is no merit in the submission of the appellant. The penalty was imposed for non- compliance to notices under section

SHRI RAJNIKANT HARGOVINDDAS SANADIA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (3)(5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

274 read with section 271(1) (b), the appellant has submitted, that as he was in appeal against assessment order passed under section 144 read with section 147; penalty proceedings should be kept in abeyance. There is no merit in the submission of the appellant. The penalty was imposed for non- compliance to notices under section

M/S. UNITED ENGINEERS, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty levied under section 271(1)(C) of the Act is void as no specific notice u/s 274 has been

DILESHKUMAR GORDHANBHAI PATEL,ADIPUR vs. DCIT, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Vs. The Dcit, Patel Gandhidham Circle, Venus Plaster Industries, Plot Gandhidham (Kutch) No.89, Ward-2B, Adipur (Kutch) Pan : Aaopp 4484 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” For Short] Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 5,04,500/- Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:- “The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts As Also In Law In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.5,04,500/- Levied U/S 271Aab Of The Act On The Ad-Hoc Disclosure Of Rs.50,45,000/-. The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271Aab Of The Act Is Totally Unjustified On Facts As Also In Law, May Kindly Be Deleted.” 3. The Primary Argument Of The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Against The Levy Of Penalty Was That The Income Surrendered By The Assessee During

274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub- section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice issued

SMT. BIJAL DARSHITBHAI PUJARA,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1),, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

274 of the Income-tax Act,1961 was issued without specifying the limbs for which the penalty was levied. 2. Confirming penalty of Rs. 10,67,798/- u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 particularly when there is no case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particular and income declare in revised return was accepted

ATMAN RAJNIKANT BHESDADIYA L/R. LATE SHRI RAJNIKANT LAVJIBHAI BHEDADIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub- section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice I.T.A

M/S. GUPTA GLOBAL EXIM PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs.6,71,930/- is not justified and should be cancelled.” 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in imposing the penalty of Rs. 6,71,930/- under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. But the assessee again failed to submit or furnished any reply before the AO. Therefore the AO in absence of any reply or submission held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular of income and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,61,568/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded

DINESHCHANDRA N. SHAH,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5),, JAMNAGAR.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act on account of concealment/furnishing inaccurate particular of income. 5. The assessee during the penalty proceedings contended that he failed to disclose the interest income in the income tax return inadvertently. 6. Similarly the assessee contended that he has actually incurred an expense of Rs. 24,612 on account of salary

M/S. DECENT METAL PRODUCTS,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 (1), JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

section 274 of the Act. The AO finally levied the penalty for concealment of the particulars of income at Rs. 95,441/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: “5. The penalty order u/s

SHRI PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.-2, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

274 of the Act was initiated and notice dated 24/12/2018 was issued and duly served on the assessee alonwith assessment order. 2.1. Since the assessee did not file any response to the above notice, a letter dated 10.06.2019 was issued by the A.O. to show cause as to why an order imposing penalty 271BA should not be levied and called

SHRI BABUBHAI MOHANBHAI SORATHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (3), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 01/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2007-2008 Babubhai Mohanbhai Sorthiya, I.T.O., “Aai Shree Gel Maa Bhavan, Vs. Ward-1(!)(3), Chora Mavdi Gam, Rajkot. Rajkot. C/O D.R Adhia “Om Shri Padamlaya”, Nr. Trikamrayji Haweli, 16-Jagnath Plot, Dr.Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Bhups6647H

section 143(3) of the Act initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act vide notice dated 15-12-2017 and further opportunity was provided vide show cause notice u/s 271(1)(b) r.w.s. 274

M/S. IMPACT FORGING, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.307 To 311/Rjt/2018 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: (2011-2012 To 2015-16) M/S. Impact Forging, D.C.I.T, 6, Mani Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-1, Near Popullar Roller, Rajkot. Mavdi Plot, Rajkot. Pan: Aadfi1340Q

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is void as no specific notice u/s 274 has been