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

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

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

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

SH. ARASHPREET 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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

SH. ARASHPREET 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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

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

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

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

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