M/S ROYAL SYMBOL REAL ESTATE AGROTECH CORPORATION LTD.,BALLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5), BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and, in the penalty proceedings the AO has considered the additions

M/S NARAYAN DAS SARRAF & SONS,,VARANASI vs. D/ACIT, RANGE - 01,, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Narayan Das Sarraf & Sons, Vs Dcit, Ck-21/39-A, Thatheri Bazar, Range-1, Varanasi, Varanasi. Uttar Pradesh – 222 001. Pan: Aahfn2075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2023 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 12.07.2021 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Issue Urged In This Appeal Related To Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. This Appeal Was Heard Earlier By The Coordinate Bench. Since Members Differed In Their View, The Hon’Blenominated A. The Hon’Blehas Since Passed An Order & He Has Concurred With The View Taken By The Hon’Ble, In Deleting The Penalty, Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. In View Of The Majority Opinion, The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Is Liable To Be Deleted. We Order Accordingly.

penalty, levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. In view of the majority opinion, the penalty levied by the AO u/s

GORAKH NATH YADAV,VARANASI vs. ITA, WARD - 3(4), VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty is to be imposed in the assessment order. Even in the show-cause notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271

PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA,AZAMGARH vs. ITO WARD3(1), INCOME TAX OFFICE AZAMGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and, completion

PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA,AZAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and, completion

M/S RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA,AZAMGARH vs. ACIT, RANGE - AZAMGARH, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sarfuddinpur, Near Railway Tax, Range-Azamgarh Station, Azamgarh-276001 Pan-Aakfr2986A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2023

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. The assessee challenged the action

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U. P.. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks

BYAS PRASAD VERMA,KUSHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KUSHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Byas Prasad Verma V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. Dhaurahara Ward 2(4) Nadwa Bishunpur Kushinagar Fazilnagar, Kushinagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Amupv6031E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.16,45,000/- In His Saving Bank Account. In Order To Examine These Facts, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ao Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b)of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC by raising the following