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

144 of the Act and not to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act again and again. In this view of the matter, we restrict the penalty levied under Section 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

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

144 of the Act and not to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act again and again. In this view of the matter, we restrict the penalty levied under Section 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

SHRI RAVINDER SACHDEVA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5 (4), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

section 271(l)(b). The AO, if at all, wanted to levy the penalty he should have waited for the decision of appeal by the worthy CIT(A). This was grave injustice which has been done to the assessee. As such the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. I.T.A. No. 202/Asr/2023

SH.SURESH KUMAR SHARMA.S/O SH. RAKHA RAM,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (3), FAIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

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

144 of the Act. It is very clear that assessee was non cooperative during assessment proceeding. Further in appeal proceeding before the CIT(A) theassessee was not able to substantiate any I.T.A. Nos.110 &111/Asr/2019 10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 such evidence that there is a reasonable cause for non-levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) read with Section

SH. SURESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O. SH. RAKHA RAM,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), FARIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

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

144 of the Act. It is very clear that assessee was non cooperative during assessment proceeding. Further in appeal proceeding before the CIT(A) theassessee was not able to substantiate any I.T.A. Nos.110 &111/Asr/2019 10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 such evidence that there is a reasonable cause for non-levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) read with Section

SMT. PRITPAL KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), JALANDHAR

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

144 of IT Act and has imposed penalty u/s 271F of IT Act amounting to Rs.5,000. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty on two grounds. 1. That the AR of appellant appear before the AO in the penalty proceedings but has not mentioned about the sale

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

144 ITR – 423, to argue that in case of accounts being maintained in mercantile system failure to include income in the return without showing change in method of accounting , calls for penalty to be imposed. 19. He further argued that in the instant case there is nothing wrong in the notice issued u/s 274rws 271(1) (c), because as evident

SHRI VARINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BATALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

section 271(1 )(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT(A) did not appreciate that notices for hearing the appeal were never received by me. As such I could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). As such the order is bad in the eyes of law and the same may be cancelled. 8. That

SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH S/O SHRI.GURDEV SINGH ,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (4 ), MANSA

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

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

271 (1)(c) is otherwise not sustainable as no specific charge as to whether the penalty have been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income have been established. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, any ground of grounds of appeal during the course of hearing.” 3. The assessee has raised

SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH S/O SH. GURDEV SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 (4), MANSA

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

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

271 (1)(c) is otherwise not sustainable as no specific charge as to whether the penalty have been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income have been established. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, any ground of grounds of appeal during the course of hearing.” 3. The assessee has raised

SMT. RAJINDER KAUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Act have been initiated since assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act has been made by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) vide order dated 28.03.2022. Assessee was further informed that appeal against assessment order is required to be filed and assessee is also entitled to question the order passed

SHRI RAVINDER SACHDEVA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -5 (4), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

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

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1 )(b) and 271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income are being initiated separately.” 7. The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirm the addition by observing as under: I.T.A. No. 263/Asr/2022 Assessment Year

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S