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

1. That the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda, erred both in law as well as in respect of the facts of the case while cancelling the penalty order, passed under section 271D, dated 10.02.2014, by the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Bathinda vide his order dated 29.03.2016, passed under section 263 of the Income

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 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

section 263 of the Act was not appealable before this Tribunal since he was not advised by his Tax Consultant about this legal right. Later on, when a Senior Lawyer advised assessee to file an appeal, the assessee immediately took steps to file the appeal. Therefore, the delay caused. We note that delay was because of the wrong advice

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

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

1. That neither in facts nor on law, the Id. Pr.CIT was justified in exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in this case. 2. That the impugned order is liable to be set aside being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice, when none of the notices, issued

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

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

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

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

TILAK UTPADAN PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESI before the due date

TILAK UTPADAN PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESI before the due date

M/S KOSMO VEHICELS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5 (3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESI before the due date

SMT. GURINDER KAUR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESI before the due date

SMT. PRITPAL KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), JALANDHAR

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

delay of 80 days is condoned, in view of the bonafide reason of the medical ground and accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3 Pritpal Kaur v. ITO 4. The grounds raised are vague and not specific to issue. However, the assessee’s main grievance is that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly imposed penalty of Rs.5000

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