SMT KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

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

271(l)(b) have been consequential to a search action u/s 132 which led to notices under Section 153A and 142(1), which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected in this case. Reliance is being placed on the judgment

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

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

271(l)(b) have been consequential to a search action u/s 132 which led to notices under Section 153A and 142(1), which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected in this case. Reliance is being placed on the judgment

SMT KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

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

271(l)(b) have been consequential to a search action u/s 132 which led to notices under Section 153A and 142(1), which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected in this case. Reliance is being placed on the judgment

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

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

271(l)(b) have been consequential to a search action u/s 132 which led to notices under Section 153A and 142(1), which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected in this case. Reliance is being placed on the judgment

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

condonation of delay with the support of affidavit of the appellant assesse, as under: “1. That applicant has filed appeal against order u/s 263 of the Act dated 28.03.2021 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar received by assessee on 01.04.2021. 2. That appeal against order u/s 263 of the Act was required to be filed

SHRI VARINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BATALA

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

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

delay of 198 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the penalty order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Batala thereby levying penalty of Rs.5,09,784/- u/s 271

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2008-09. The appeal against the penalty was filed with delay of 149 days. The assessee filed a condonation

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2008-09. The appeal against the penalty was filed with delay of 149 days. The assessee filed a condonation

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

SH. SHAM LAL,CHANDIGARH vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

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

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

penalty order passed by the AO u/s. 271 AAA of the Income Tax Act. As such order of the CIT(A) is liable to cancelled. 3. That the appeal has been rejected on the ground that the appellant has not filed an application for condonation of delay

MESERS ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before

MESERS ARYA MODEL SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before

FARUKH KABIR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 47/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14

delay of more than 3 (three years) in filing the appeal. The order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was passed on 22.09.2016 which was served on the appellant on 30.09.2016 and the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) has been filed on 04.06.2019, which is belated by almost three years. 5. The ld. AR of the assessee in course

RAJIV MEHRA ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 10 days condoned and the appeal is admitted on merits. 4. The ld. counsel contended that the penalty is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) without application of mind as the ld. Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty by issuing a notice u/s 271

SHRI JASWANT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos.217 to 220/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 2. The appeal of the assessee was filed with delay of 3 days. The ld. AR explained that the delay of 3 days is due to postal delay and it is negligible. The ld. DR had not made any objection against the condonation of delay

SHRI JASWANT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos.217 to 220/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 2. The appeal of the assessee was filed with delay of 3 days. The ld. AR explained that the delay of 3 days is due to postal delay and it is negligible. The ld. DR had not made any objection against the condonation of delay