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

139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person or assessee for any failure referred to in section 271F if he proves that there was reasonable cause for said failure

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

139(1) is not sufficient to warrant penalty provided under section 271F but it is imposable only when default continues even after end of relevant assessment year - Held, yes - Whether no penalty is imposable under section 271F on person or assessee for any failure referred to in section 271F if he proves that there was reasonable cause for said failure

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) is wrong illegal and against facts and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 2. That Ld. AO while imposing the penalty has not considered the facts of the case and proceeded to impose the penalty arbitrarily. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while confirming the same

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) is wrong illegal and against facts and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 2. That Ld. AO while imposing the penalty has not considered the facts of the case and proceeded to impose the penalty arbitrarily. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while confirming the same

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

139 of the Act on dated 29-10-2007, whereas in response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee had declared the income of Rs.22,20,870/- which was assessed at Rs. 22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

139 of the Act declaring income u/s 44 AD of the Act. Total income of Rs. 1, 82,972/- was declared at the rate of 8% on total turnover of Rs, 14,86,302/-. In addition labour income was shown at Rs. 2, 33,720/-. Proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act were initiated on the basis of information that

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

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

section 139(1). the assessee cannot be visited with penalty. We allow all these appeals of the assessee and delete the penalties. 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear and an established fact that the income offered pursuant to notice u/s 153C would replace the income offered in return filed u/s 139(1). Furthermore, the notice u/s

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

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

section 139(1). the assessee cannot be visited with penalty. We allow all these appeals of the assessee and delete the penalties. 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear and an established fact that the income offered pursuant to notice u/s 153C would replace the income offered in return filed u/s 139(1). Furthermore, the notice u/s

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

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

section 139(1). the assessee cannot be visited with penalty. We allow all these appeals of the assessee and delete the penalties. 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear and an established fact that the income offered pursuant to notice u/s 153C would replace the income offered in return filed u/s 139(1). Furthermore, the notice u/s

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

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

section 139(1). the assessee cannot be visited with penalty. We allow all these appeals of the assessee and delete the penalties. 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear and an established fact that the income offered pursuant to notice u/s 153C would replace the income offered in return filed u/s 139(1). Furthermore, the notice u/s

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR,JALANDHAR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals are allowed

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

section 139(1). the assessee cannot be visited with penalty. We allow all these appeals of the assessee and delete the penalties. 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear and an established fact that the income offered pursuant to notice u/s 153C would replace the income offered in return filed u/s 139(1). Furthermore, the notice u/s