SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR

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

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

justice, we partly allow the appeal of the assessee and modify the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restrict the net profit rate to 1% of the gross receipts, which is more than the percentage in the last 3 years. We therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to compute the addition @ 1% of the gross receipts. Appeal filed

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 (1), AMRITSAR

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

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

justice, we partly allow the appeal of the assessee and modify the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restrict the net profit rate to 1% of the gross receipts, which is more than the percentage in the last 3 years. We therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to compute the addition @ 1% of the gross receipts. Appeal filed

M/S. CHAUDHARY ENTERPRISES,,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid

Bench: Shri. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case, and are persuaded to subscribe to the claim of the ld. A.R that the A.O had both in the body of the assessment order, as well as in the aforesaid ‘SCN’, dated 19.02.2004 failed to point out the specific default

SHRI YASH PAUL MALHOTRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act of Rs. 17,68,888/- as confirmed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is illegal and bad in law since additional income was offered to tax during survey operations on 09.09.2015 subject to no penal action. Penalty imposed is opposed to judgement of Honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case

SHRI H.K. GANDOTRA,GURGAON vs. THE INOCME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

271 is to ensure that the basic requirement of fair play in action is fulfilled. The rules of natural justice are flexible and cannot be put on any rigid formula. In order to sustain a complaint of violation of principles of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, it has to be established that prejudice has been caused

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), AMRITSAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri L.P Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

u/s 271 (1) (c) of the I.T Act may not be imposed on him. Insofar the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O is concerned, we find that the same has been assailed before us on the ground that as the irrelevant default in the ‘Show cause’ notice, dated 31.12.2010 was not struck off by the A.O, therefore

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

SHRI BHARAT PAL SOOD,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PHAGWARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Sood

natural justice thus also stood violated. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty for concealment at Rs. 2,75,275/- . Even the error in computing the peak balance which was the basis of levy of penalty for concealment has not been appreciated. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for Assessment

MRS. MALTI GUPTA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER,WARD-III(4), JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Sood

u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act may not be imposed on her. Insofar, the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O is concerned, the same has been assailed before us on the ground that as the irrelevant default in the ‘Show cause’ notice, dated 31.12.2010 was not struck off by the A.O, therefore, the assessee

SHRI BALBIR SINGH M/S JAIDEEP GIFT CENTRE, TAPTEJ SINGH MARKET ,MOGA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MOGA RANGE , MOGA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

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

271 E/27 ID is not called for. In the case of CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H) it has been mentioned that under section 273B, the assessee is permitted to show cause and tender explanation. The explanation of the assessee was found to be bona fide by the tribunal and it was also held that

SHRI BALBIR SINGH M/S JAIDEEP GIFT CENTRE TAPTEJ SINGH MARKET,MOGA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MOGA RANGE MOGA, MOGA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

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

271 E/27 ID is not called for. In the case of CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel, (2009) 315 ITR 163 (P&H) it has been mentioned that under section 273B, the assessee is permitted to show cause and tender explanation. The explanation of the assessee was found to be bona fide by the tribunal and it was also held that

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

NATURE OF REASON OF PENALTY ADDITION IN IMPOSED ON PENALTY A.Y. ADDITION ADDITION (as pr A.Order) APPEAL ADDITION AMOUNT 2007-08 (i) 2,68,578 66,478 66,478 11,930 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A.order u/s

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

NATURE OF REASON OF PENALTY ADDITION IN IMPOSED ON PENALTY A.Y. ADDITION ADDITION (as pr A.Order) APPEAL ADDITION AMOUNT 2007-08 (i) 2,68,578 66,478 66,478 11,930 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A.order u/s

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

NATURE OF REASON OF PENALTY ADDITION IN IMPOSED ON PENALTY A.Y. ADDITION ADDITION (as pr A.Order) APPEAL ADDITION AMOUNT 2007-08 (i) 2,68,578 66,478 66,478 11,930 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A.order u/s

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

NATURE OF REASON OF PENALTY ADDITION IN IMPOSED ON PENALTY A.Y. ADDITION ADDITION (as pr A.Order) APPEAL ADDITION AMOUNT 2007-08 (i) 2,68,578 66,478 66,478 11,930 Deposits in Indian Bank Concealment of Income (As per last line of Para 3.7(v) page no 5. of A.order u/s