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

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

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 where sufficient cause is proved by the defaulter. In the instant case, the appellant cannot be harmed/punished for the mistakes on the part of its counsel. Accordingly, finding sufficient cause for delay in filing these appeals by the appellant assessee

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 where sufficient cause is proved by the defaulter. In the instant case, the appellant cannot be harmed/punished for the mistakes on the part of its counsel. Accordingly, finding sufficient cause for delay in filing these appeals by the appellant assessee

SHRI NITIN SEHGAL,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

50,000/- in respect of cash seized from the assessee. 3.1 That while sustaining the addition, the Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the source of amounts and the cash flow chart filed during the assessment proceedings. 4. That the appellant begs to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” 3. None

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

section 68 are not applicable as the assessee appellant has made re- payment of loan taken from the bank against limit. As such addition of Rs. 9,10,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified and bad in law. The same be deleted. 3 I.T.A. No. 149/Asr/2023 Gamdoor Singh v. ITO 6. That the appellant craves

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

condoning the delay in the open court to the CIT (DR) and directed the parties to make submissions on the merit of the case and the matter was adjourned to 12.07.2021. The A.R. for the assessee had submitted that the additions 16. were made by the Assessing Officer made on the photo copy of a forged agreement to sell dated

ATAM PARGAS SOCIAL WELFARE COUNCIL,LUDHIANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.637(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:

section 2(15) of the Act. 3.1. That the Ld CIT(Exemption) failed to appreciate the fact that where the predominant object of the Applicant society was to carry out a charitable activity, the society would not lose its charitable status merely on the ground that the society has made some profits from carrying out these activities. 3.2. That

M/S ALFA MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALS ENGINEERING WORKS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

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

section 271(1)(c) before the ITAT. The ld, CIT(A) first served the order related to penalty. The assessee was waiting for quantum appeal as per advice of consultant. The wrong advice of the consultant may cause the delay for filing the appeal. The Revenue has not made any objection related to condonation of delay for 149 days. Accordingly

MESERS ALFA MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALS ENGINEERING WORKS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD 3 (1), SRINAGAR

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

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

section 271(1)(c) before the ITAT. The ld, CIT(A) first served the order related to penalty. The assessee was waiting for quantum appeal as per advice of consultant. The wrong advice of the consultant may cause the delay for filing the appeal. The Revenue has not made any objection related to condonation of delay for 149 days. Accordingly

SHRI YASIR BILAL KHAN,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided sufficient opportunities to appear before bench. However, none appeared on behalf of assessee& no adjournment petition was filed before the bench. In view of the above

SHRI YASIR BILAL KHAN,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided sufficient opportunities to appear before bench. However, none appeared on behalf of assessee& no adjournment petition was filed before the bench. In view of the above

SHRI YASIR BILAL KHAN,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided sufficient opportunities to appear before bench. However, none appeared on behalf of assessee& no adjournment petition was filed before the bench. In view of the above

SHRI YASIR BILAL KHAN,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided sufficient opportunities to appear before bench. However, none appeared on behalf of assessee& no adjournment petition was filed before the bench. In view of the above

SHRI YASIR BILAL KHAN,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided sufficient opportunities to appear before bench. However, none appeared on behalf of assessee& no adjournment petition was filed before the bench. In view of the above

SHRI YASIR BILAL KHAN,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

delay for 31 days is condoned. 3. The case was called for hearing, but none was present on behalf of the assessee. Where assessee was duly served the notice and is also provided sufficient opportunities to appear before bench. However, none appeared on behalf of assessee& no adjournment petition was filed before the bench. In view of the above

ROYAL FURNISHER ,JAMMU vs. ASSESING OFFICER WARD- 2 (2), JAMMU

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

condoned. 4. Tersely we advert the fact of the case. The addition was made for delayed payment of PF and ESI amount of Rs. 4,16,169/-before the close of the financial year and Rs.71,818/- on 18.04.2018 related to EPF payable. The assessee filed an I.T.A. No.54/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2018-19 appeal before

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises