AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR G T ROAD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 44AB of the Act, 1961. However, since we have remanded the quantum appeal back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits of the case, we also deem it fit and proper to remand this penalty appeal u/s 271B back to the ld. first appellate authority to decide the matter in tandem with

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 44AB of the Act, 1961. However, since we have remanded the quantum appeal back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits of the case, we also deem it fit and proper to remand this penalty appeal u/s 271B back to the ld. first appellate authority to decide the matter in tandem with

AMARJOT SINGH,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 44AB of the Act, 1961. However, since we have remanded the quantum appeal back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits of the case, we also deem it fit and proper to remand this penalty appeal u/s 271B back to the ld. first appellate authority to decide the matter in tandem with

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 ADIL KHURSHID BHAT,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condoned the delay and therefore, he has no authority to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation while passing the final order. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has acted in a contradictory manner while dismissing the appeal on the reason that "the reason for delay is not found to be tenable" while passing the order

SH ADIL KHURSHID BHAT,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condoned the delay and therefore, he has no authority to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation while passing the final order. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has acted in a contradictory manner while dismissing the appeal on the reason that "the reason for delay is not found to be tenable" while passing the order

SHRI ADIL KHURSHID BHAT,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condoned the delay and therefore, he has no authority to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation while passing the final order. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has acted in a contradictory manner while dismissing the appeal on the reason that "the reason for delay is not found to be tenable" while passing the order