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

14 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC 9. A perusal of the above provisions of u/s. 271(1)(b) shows that the Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear in as much as that levy of Penalty is discretionary and not automatic. The said conclusion is further justified

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

14 I.T.A. Nos. 31 to 34/Asr/2023 Santokh Singh v. ITO, NFAC 9. A perusal of the above provisions of u/s. 271(1)(b) shows that the Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear in as much as that levy of Penalty is discretionary and not automatic. The said conclusion is further justified

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

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 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 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

14,86,302/- declared by the appellant in the return of income. The argument of Ld. AR that the addition has been made on a mere difference of opinion is rejected. The addition to the returned income has been made in this case on the basis of cash credits in the bank account of the appellant which were

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

14. As regards the ground number four we concur the arguments of the Id. AR of the assessee that the revenue cannot take a plea that in the AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Yashwant Sharma has not offered peak credit. A cash book was prepared and submitted before the Id. AO and Id CIT(A) which

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

14. As regards the ground number four we concur the arguments of the Id. AR of the assessee that the revenue cannot take a plea that in the AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Yashwant Sharma has not offered peak credit. A cash book was prepared and submitted before the Id. AO and Id CIT(A) which

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

14. As regards the ground number four we concur the arguments of the Id. AR of the assessee that the revenue cannot take a plea that in the AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Yashwant Sharma has not offered peak credit. A cash book was prepared and submitted before the Id. AO and Id CIT(A) which

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

14. As regards the ground number four we concur the arguments of the Id. AR of the assessee that the revenue cannot take a plea that in the AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Yashwant Sharma has not offered peak credit. A cash book was prepared and submitted before the Id. AO and Id CIT(A) which

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

14. As regards the ground number four we concur the arguments of the Id. AR of the assessee that the revenue cannot take a plea that in the AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Yashwant Sharma has not offered peak credit. A cash book was prepared and submitted before the Id. AO and Id CIT(A) which

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

14. As regards the ground number four we concur the arguments of the Id. AR of the assessee that the revenue cannot take a plea that in the AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Yashwant Sharma has not offered peak credit. A cash book was prepared and submitted before the Id. AO and Id CIT(A) which

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

14. As regards the ground number four we concur the arguments of the Id. AR of the assessee that the revenue cannot take a plea that in the AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Yashwant Sharma has not offered peak credit. A cash book was prepared and submitted before the Id. AO and Id CIT(A) which

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

14. As regards the ground number four we concur the arguments of the Id. AR of the assessee that the revenue cannot take a plea that in the AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Yashwant Sharma has not offered peak credit. A cash book was prepared and submitted before the Id. AO and Id CIT(A) which

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

14. As regards the ground number four we concur the arguments of the Id. AR of the assessee that the revenue cannot take a plea that in the AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Yashwant Sharma has not offered peak credit. A cash book was prepared and submitted before the Id. AO and Id CIT(A) which

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

14. As regards the ground number four we concur the arguments of the Id. AR of the assessee that the revenue cannot take a plea that in the AY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Yashwant Sharma has not offered peak credit. A cash book was prepared and submitted before the Id. AO and Id CIT(A) which