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

6. That the appellant was served with notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) asking the appellant as to why the penalty in default of notice u/s 142(1) should not be levied. In response to the said notice, the appellant submitted that he is a senior citizen and illiterate person who cannot operate computers and is not aware

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

6. That the appellant was served with notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) asking the appellant as to why the penalty in default of notice u/s 142(1) should not be levied. In response to the said notice, the appellant submitted that he is a senior citizen and illiterate person who cannot operate computers and is not aware

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

section 145 of the Act. The assessee did not furnish any explanation during the assessment proceedings. Interest income was accordingly assessed, and penalty proceedings initiated. Under the circumstances, the AO’s satisfaction for the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is plain and apparent. (b) The second item is qua the disallowance in the sum of Rs.1

SHRI GULZAR SINGH , GURBACHAN SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

6. The appellant objected to the confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in the grounds of appeal by pleading that the penalty has been upheld without appreciating that the appellant had maintained complete books of account and hence the confirmation of penalty for adhoc and estimated disallowance of shop expenses is not justified and liable to be deleted; that

SHRI GULZAR SINGH. GURBACHAN SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

6. The appellant objected to the confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in the grounds of appeal by pleading that the penalty has been upheld without appreciating that the appellant had maintained complete books of account and hence the confirmation of penalty for adhoc and estimated disallowance of shop expenses is not justified and liable to be deleted; that

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

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

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

u/s 271 (1)(c) have been initiated separately”. He argued that it shows that the AO was not sure about the specific default/charge of the assessee. 7. In the case of Gaurav “Mehra vs ACIT”, (Supra) the coordinate bench held as follows: 5. The Id. counsel further pleaded that in view of the jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court decisions

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

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

u/s 271 (1)(c) have been initiated separately”. He argued that it shows that the AO was not sure about the specific default/charge of the assessee. 7. In the case of Gaurav “Mehra vs ACIT”, (Supra) the coordinate bench held as follows: 5. The Id. counsel further pleaded that in view of the jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court decisions

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

SHRI AJAYA KUMAR CHADDA ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

11 of the ITAT Rules as under: “viii. That on the facts and under the circumstance of the case the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is void as the notice u/s.274 read with Sec. 271 dated 10.08.2017 is bad and defective as it was issued without deleting the appropriate clause under which the penalty

SH. KASTURI LAL MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

6. Having heard both the parties on the point of raising the additional ground. It is well settled by the Apex Court in the NTPC case (supra) that the legal ground can be taken at any stage, if no new ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT facts are required to be introduced and ground is based upon

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

6. Having heard both the parties on the point of raising the additional ground. It is well settled by the Apex Court in the NTPC case (supra) that the legal ground can be taken at any stage, if no new ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT facts are required to be introduced and ground is based upon

SH AMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

6. Having heard both the parties on the point of raising the additional ground. It is well settled by the Apex Court in the NTPC case (supra) that the legal ground can be taken at any stage, if no new ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT facts are required to be introduced and ground is based upon

SH. KASTURI LAL MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

6. Having heard both the parties on the point of raising the additional ground. It is well settled by the Apex Court in the NTPC case (supra) that the legal ground can be taken at any stage, if no new ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT facts are required to be introduced and ground is based upon

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

6. Having heard both the parties on the point of raising the additional ground. It is well settled by the Apex Court in the NTPC case (supra) that the legal ground can be taken at any stage, if no new ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT facts are required to be introduced and ground is based upon

SH AMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

6. Having heard both the parties on the point of raising the additional ground. It is well settled by the Apex Court in the NTPC case (supra) that the legal ground can be taken at any stage, if no new ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT facts are required to be introduced and ground is based upon

SH AMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

6. Having heard both the parties on the point of raising the additional ground. It is well settled by the Apex Court in the NTPC case (supra) that the legal ground can be taken at any stage, if no new ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT facts are required to be introduced and ground is based upon

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

6. Having heard both the parties on the point of raising the additional ground. It is well settled by the Apex Court in the NTPC case (supra) that the legal ground can be taken at any stage, if no new ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT facts are required to be introduced and ground is based upon