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

271(1)(b) of the Act to the first default of the assessee in not complying with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is restricted to ₹ 10,000/- . The grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus partly allowed. From the above submission your honor is very humbly submitted to delete the penalty

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

271(1)(b) of the Act to the first default of the assessee in not complying with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is restricted to ₹ 10,000/- . The grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus partly allowed. From the above submission your honor is very humbly submitted to delete the penalty

M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 548/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

u/s. 271(1)(c). This is precisely what stands clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Madhushree Gupta & Ors v. Union of India [2009] 317 ITR 107 (Del), a copious decision rendered under writ jurisdiction on a challenge to the vires of the provision (section 271(1B)). Upholding its’ constitutionality, it again emphasized on the primacy

SH. JINDER PAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), AMRITSAR

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

10. Agra Bench in case of Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 342 /AGR/2014 vide order dated 31/07/2017 follows the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) while held as under: 11. It is evident that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction

SHRI CHANDAN BHARDWAJ,TARN TARAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

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

10. Agra Bench in case of Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 342 /AGR/2014 vide order dated 31/07/2017 follows the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) while held as under: 11. It is evident that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction

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 is attracted with reference to income tax return filed and ultimately assessed. He further submitted that the act of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars will come into play after filing of income tax return and the satisfaction of the AO will be recorded on the basis of comparison between returned income

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been initiated.” In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we concur with the ld. A.R, that the A.O had both in the body of the assessment order, as well as vide his “SCN”, dated 19.02.2004 failed to put the assessee firm to notice as regards the specific default

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

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

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

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. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

10. The Ld. AR argued that the diaries confronted to him Late Sh. Gurmail Singh do not include diary No. “SGF-XIV” in specific and contended that he has answered that those diaries specified in question did not belong either to his or its son’s activities. He contended that it was only a typographical or a clerical mistake that

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

10. The Ld. AR argued that the diaries confronted to him Late Sh. Gurmail Singh do not include diary No. “SGF-XIV” in specific and contended that he has answered that those diaries specified in question did not belong either to his or its son’s activities. He contended that it was only a typographical or a clerical mistake that

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

10. The Ld. AR argued that the diaries confronted to him Late Sh. Gurmail Singh do not include diary No. “SGF-XIV” in specific and contended that he has answered that those diaries specified in question did not belong either to his or its son’s activities. He contended that it was only a typographical or a clerical mistake that

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

10. The Ld. AR argued that the diaries confronted to him Late Sh. Gurmail Singh do not include diary No. “SGF-XIV” in specific and contended that he has answered that those diaries specified in question did not belong either to his or its son’s activities. He contended that it was only a typographical or a clerical mistake that

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

10. The Ld. AR argued that the diaries confronted to him Late Sh. Gurmail Singh do not include diary No. “SGF-XIV” in specific and contended that he has answered that those diaries specified in question did not belong either to his or its son’s activities. He contended that it was only a typographical or a clerical mistake that

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

10. The Ld. AR argued that the diaries confronted to him Late Sh. Gurmail Singh do not include diary No. “SGF-XIV” in specific and contended that he has answered that those diaries specified in question did not belong either to his or its son’s activities. He contended that it was only a typographical or a clerical mistake that

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

10. The Ld. AR argued that the diaries confronted to him Late Sh. Gurmail Singh do not include diary No. “SGF-XIV” in specific and contended that he has answered that those diaries specified in question did not belong either to his or its son’s activities. He contended that it was only a typographical or a clerical mistake that