VAISNAVI AGRO,DEOGHAR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), DEOGHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A. No. 236 & 237/Ran/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. Vaishnavi Agro...................................................................................................Appellant Bandha Town Area, P.O. B. Deoghar – 814 112. Jharkhand. [Pan: Aaefv 0289 J Income Tax Officer...................…………………….....................................................Respondent Ward No. Iii(1), Deoghar. Appearances By: Shri M.K. Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Malik, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

SHRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA ,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. Counsel further brought to my notice that

SHRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA ,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. Counsel further brought to my notice that

SHRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA ,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. Counsel further brought to my notice that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,RANCHI vs. SHRI RAJESH BATHWAL, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. SHRI RAJESH BATHWAL, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. SHRI RAJESH BATHWAL, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. SHRI RAJESH BATHWAL, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR SHAH,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 354/Ran/2016 Assessment Year :2008-09 Acit Cir 1...........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Raj Kumar Shah...................……………………………………..................................Respondent European Quarter Chaibasa, Jharkhand – 833 201 [Pan: Alkps 7305 M] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order The Revenue’S Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Has Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI vs. SHRI SUMIT RAMSISARIA, RANCHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act, 1961 are separately initiated on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income." The above statement of the Assessing Officer IS not legally tenable due to the following reasons.- The AO has assumed that no such liability existed in the form of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs.3