DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., the notice failed to specify whether the penalty was imposed for concealment of income, furnishing inaccurate particulars, or both. As such the entire penalty proceeding is void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 4. For that Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) have erred on facts

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., the notice failed to specify whether the penalty was imposed for concealment of income, furnishing inaccurate particulars, or both. As such the entire penalty proceeding is void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 4. For that Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) have erred on facts

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

32,22,000/- @ 150% of the tax sought to be evaded under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30/11/2017 on the ground 3 M/s CCL Vs DCIT that "the assessee company has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and to that extent it has concealed its income." 3. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee company filed appeal

SRI SANJAY PRASAD ,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT C.C.-1 , RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.158/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Sri Sanjay Prasad, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1, D/Lg-70, Choudhary Ranchi Madhusudan Complex, Dimna Road, Mango, Wests Singhbhum-831012 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Ailpp 0209 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-3, Dated 26.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Of Rs.1,32,118/-. 3. At The Outset, Ld Authorised Representative Of The Assessee Filed Before Us Copy Of Notice Issued U/S.274 R.W.S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 31.12.2011, Copy Of Which Is Placed On Record & Pointed Out Therefrom That In The Said Notice, The Assessing Officer Has Stated As Under: "Whereas In The Course Of Proceedings Before Me For The Assessment Year 2009-10, It Appears To Me That You:-

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings

M/S RAM SWARUP RUNGTA & BROTHERS,RANCHI vs. DCIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held in the negative and against

SRI AJAY KUMAR ,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-1(1), HAZARIBAGH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.243/Ran/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.207/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”). 2. First we shall take assessee’s appeal in ITA NO. 243/Ran/2016 for A.Y. 2009- 10. 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. Assessing officer does not consider sale of land as business income instead of capital gain, he is also

SHRI AJAY KUMARS/O SHRI KISAN BHAGWAT,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-2(5), HAZARIBAGH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.243/Ran/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.207/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”). 2. First we shall take assessee’s appeal in ITA NO. 243/Ran/2016 for A.Y. 2009- 10. 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. Assessing officer does not consider sale of land as business income instead of capital gain, he is also

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

section 142(1) of the Act, dated 20.06.2016, which were furnished by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings, the copy of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference: “Sub: Income Tax assessment in your case AY 2012-13 notice u/s 142(1) reg. Following details / explanations / clarifications may be furnished on or before

JITENDRA SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

section 271 is vague and as such, initiation of proceedings is ab initio void. 2. For that the penalty of ₹ 4,07,070/- has been imposed against the total addition made for ₹ 13,17,380/- which was made during the assessment proceedings, however, the fact remains that the addition made stands reduced to ₹ 1,50,000/- in total

RAMESH KUMAR SINGH,RANCHI vs. PR. CIT(C), PATNA, PATNA

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in this case. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT vide its order under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 03/12/2020, set aside the assessment order dated 29/12/2017 passed under Section 153A/143(3) of the Act on the ground that the said assessment order

RAMESH KUMAR SINGH,RANCHI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PATNA, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in this case. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT vide its order under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 03/12/2020, set aside the assessment order dated 29/12/2017 passed under Section 153A/143(3) of the Act on the ground that the said assessment order

PR. CIT (C), PATNA, PATNA vs. RAMESH KUMAR SINGH, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in this case. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT vide its order under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 03/12/2020, set aside the assessment order dated 29/12/2017 passed under Section 153A/143(3) of the Act on the ground that the said assessment order