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

penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the act amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in each, on account of non-compliance to notice u/s 142(1) on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 without appreciating the fact and circumstances of the matter that non-compliance has been caused due to the reasons beyond the control of the appellant. In support, he 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

penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the act amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in each, on account of non-compliance to notice u/s 142(1) on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 without appreciating the fact and circumstances of the matter that non-compliance has been caused due to the reasons beyond the control of the appellant. In support, he filed

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

13 SCC 369 [306 ITR 277] and CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 599 [317 ITR 1].’ (emphasis, ours) There was, therefore, no ambiguity in law for the Parliament to have stepped in by introducing section 271(1B), deeming a satisfaction where the order of assessment or reassessment contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s

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

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

section 271 (1)(c) could not be imposed simply on account of addition made by the AO on application of higher rate of net profit. 12. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ‘CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd.’, reported in 322 ITR 316 (Del), has held that no penalty u/s 271(l)(c) can be imposed when income

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

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

section 271 (1)(c) could not be imposed simply on account of addition made by the AO on application of higher rate of net profit. 12. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ‘CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd.’, reported in 322 ITR 316 (Del), has held that no penalty u/s 271(l)(c) can be imposed when 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

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH PROP KARNAIL SINGH SUKHDEV SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. 6 Sukhdev Singh v. ITO 6. Having heard the ld. additional CIT DR, perusal of record and impugned order, we find that undisputedly, assessee’s income has been estimated considering the deposits made in the bank account under section 44 A.D. of the Income Tax Act. In our view, penalty under section 271

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

SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted

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

13,700 14,00,000 2011-12 7 ,57,24,715 7 ,44,03,715 34,65,000 2012-13 5,84,55,112 5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them

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

13,700 14,00,000 2011-12 7 ,57,24,715 7 ,44,03,715 34,65,000 2012-13 5,84,55,112 5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them

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

13,700 14,00,000 2011-12 7 ,57,24,715 7 ,44,03,715 34,65,000 2012-13 5,84,55,112 5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them

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

13,700 14,00,000 2011-12 7 ,57,24,715 7 ,44,03,715 34,65,000 2012-13 5,84,55,112 5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them

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

13,700 14,00,000 2011-12 7 ,57,24,715 7 ,44,03,715 34,65,000 2012-13 5,84,55,112 5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them

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

13,700 14,00,000 2011-12 7 ,57,24,715 7 ,44,03,715 34,65,000 2012-13 5,84,55,112 5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them

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

13,700 14,00,000 2011-12 7 ,57,24,715 7 ,44,03,715 34,65,000 2012-13 5,84,55,112 5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them

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

13,700 14,00,000 2011-12 7 ,57,24,715 7 ,44,03,715 34,65,000 2012-13 5,84,55,112 5,96,76,112 54,50,000 2013-14 2,83,61,830 2,84,61,830 37,50,000 16. Without prejudice to the above, if this diary is presumed to be belong to them