SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for assessment year 2014-15. The impugned order was emanated from the order of ld. ITO Ward-II(1), Jalandhar. I.T.A. No. 425/Asr/2019 2 Assessment Year: 2014-15 2. The appeal was filed with delay of 14 days. The assessee filed a condonation petition and explained that the reasonable

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 263(5); the ITAT has also given discretion to condone Manjit Krishan Malhotra v. Pr.CIT the delay in cases

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 263(5); the ITAT has also given discretion to condone Manjit Krishan Malhotra v. Pr.CIT the delay in cases

SMT. RAJINDER KAUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay in filing appeal is condoned and appeal admitted on merits. 4. The Ld. PCIT observed that the assessment has been finalized by the Assessing Officer, without carrying out the necessary verification regarding source of cash deposited in the Bank account. Accordingly, in view of provisions contained in clause (a) of Explanation 2 below sub section (1) of section 263

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. First we shall take assessee`s appeal in ITA No. 306/ASR/2014, for A.Y.2007-08.The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 306/ASR/2014 are as follows: “1. That the Assessment Order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, as well

ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. First we shall take assessee`s appeal in ITA No. 306/ASR/2014, for A.Y.2007-08.The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 306/ASR/2014 are as follows: “1. That the Assessment Order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, as well

SHRI AMRIT PARKASH SEHGAL (HUF),JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

condoned the delay of 409 days in filing appeal against order u/s 263 of the Act by observation as under: 5 Amrit Parkash Sehgal (HUF) v. ITO “We are of the considered opinion that assessee was under a bona fide belief that the impugned order of Id CIT under section

GURPREET SINGH KHURANA,JALANDHAR vs. ITO WARD 1(5), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

section 263 of the Act for AY 2016-17 in ITA No.8/ASR/2021, in which the prescribed fee paid was Rs.500/-. Under the mistaken belief that the same fee structure applied in the present case as well, only Rs.500/- was initially paid by assessee of his own. 9. It is respectfully submitted that the delay in making full payment

SHRI GAMDOOR SINGH ,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (5), MANSA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay in filing the appeal before the appeal is directed to be condoned for bonafide reason as above. 6. The ld. AR contended that during the fresh assessment proceedings, in compliance to 263 order dated 01-03-2018, the appellant assessee has explained the source of repayment in the bank, but the Assessing Officer has disbelieved the source

WALIA CONSTRUCATION COMPANY ,PATHANKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay for 354 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1 That the ld.Pr.CIT-1, Amritsar has erred in initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act without application of mind. 2 That Pr.CIT-1, Amritsar has erred in holding that the AO has failed to make necessary enquiries or verification before making assessment. 3 That

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BRAR,KOTKAPURA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay of 334 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Pr. CIT, Bathinda erred in revising the assessment order Dated 14.12.2018 passed by the AO, Ward 3(3), Faridkot which was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue

M/S DASMESH COLD STORAGE ,NAKODAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay of 117 days in filing the captioned appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted on merits. 7. The Ld. Pr. CIT invoked powers u/s. 263, and passed an order dated 28.03.2022, ex-parte qua the assessee, set-asiding the assessment order holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue by observing that in response

SWAMI GANGA GIRI JANTA GIRLS COLLEGE ,RAIKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result,the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 263 is beyond the jurisdiction for the revenue. The ld. CIT(E) has no power to implement the Rule 2BBB against the assessee. We fully relied on the order of theTolani Education Society, supra. The ld. DR had not placed any contrary fact against the assessee. The assesseeis eligible for the exemption. The order passed U/s 263 is quashed

SHRI SWAMI GANGA GIRI JANTA GIRLS COLLEGE,RAIKOOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

In the result,the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 263 is beyond the jurisdiction for the revenue. The ld. CIT(E) has no power to implement the Rule 2BBB against the assessee. We fully relied on the order of theTolani Education Society, supra. The ld. DR had not placed any contrary fact against the assessee. The assesseeis eligible for the exemption. The order passed U/s 263 is quashed

SWAMI GANGA GIRI JANTA GIRLS COLLEGE,RAIKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result,the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 263 is beyond the jurisdiction for the revenue. The ld. CIT(E) has no power to implement the Rule 2BBB against the assessee. We fully relied on the order of theTolani Education Society, supra. The ld. DR had not placed any contrary fact against the assessee. The assesseeis eligible for the exemption. The order passed U/s 263 is quashed

RANJANA DEVI,MAUR MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), BATHINDA

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

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjana Devi, C/O Jishu Trading Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Co. Maur Mandi, Punjab. Bathinda. [Pan:-Alzpd4607L] (Appellant) (Respondent) None. Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr.

condoned and the appeal admitted for hearing on merits. Substantial justice is more important than the procedural delay. 3. At the outset, during the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Bench. 4. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That order passed u/s 250 of the Income

M/S GRAND LILLY LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A Nos.667 To 669 /Asr/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Ys.:2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" M/S. Grand Lilly Motels Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4, Model Town, Jalandhar Income Tax, Pan: Aabcj 4527 E Circle- Iii, Jalandhar अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" ""यथ"

condone the delay in filing of above appeals. I.T.A.No. 667/ASR/2017/A.Y. 2010-11 6. Ground No.1 relates to confirming addition of Rs. 43,41,084 on account of trading addition due to enhancement of sales, which is not profit and highly unjustified , unreasonable and uncalled for. 7. Succinct facts are that the AO has worked out the net grocery consumption

M/S. GRAND LILLY MOTELS LTD,,JALANDHAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-3, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A Nos.667 To 669 /Asr/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Ys.:2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" M/S. Grand Lilly Motels Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4, Model Town, Jalandhar Income Tax, Pan: Aabcj 4527 E Circle- Iii, Jalandhar अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" ""यथ"

condone the delay in filing of above appeals. I.T.A.No. 667/ASR/2017/A.Y. 2010-11 6. Ground No.1 relates to confirming addition of Rs. 43,41,084 on account of trading addition due to enhancement of sales, which is not profit and highly unjustified , unreasonable and uncalled for. 7. Succinct facts are that the AO has worked out the net grocery consumption

SHRI SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay for 441 days is condoned. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148 on basis of reasons recorded after getting approval from Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The appellant is an agriculturist and has been declaring agriculture I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2008-09 income consistently in the returns of income

M/S JAMMU COOPERATIVE WHOLE SALE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Jammu Cooperative Whole Sale The Ito Limited (Super Bazar) Old Hospital Ward-2(1) Road, City Chowk, Jammu- Jammu 180001(J&K)-180001

delay of seven days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. The first grounds raised is general pertaining to consideration of fact of the case and applicable law shall be taken up in adjudicating the issue based grounds and hence, it does not require an independent adjudication