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 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

144 of the Income Tax Act and disallowance was made on technical grounds and the appellant is not guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the penalty under section 271(1) (c ) could not imposed and confirming of penalty U/s

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

144 of the Income Tax Act and disallowance was made on technical grounds and the appellant is not guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the penalty under section 271(1) (c ) could not imposed and confirming of penalty U/s

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

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27.08.2014. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the 2 Brijinder Pal Singh Bhullar Vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Bathinda ITA Nos. 671 & 672/Asr/2019 – A.Y 2008-09 assessee against the quantum assessment. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. That

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27.08.2014. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the 2 Brijinder Pal Singh Bhullar Vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Bathinda ITA Nos. 671 & 672/Asr/2019 – A.Y 2008-09 assessee against the quantum assessment. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. That

D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

144, to the income assessed, or to the amount of tax determined, or to the amount of loss computed, or to the status under which he is assessed; (aa) an order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 115WE or section 115WF, where the assessee, being an employer objects to the value of fringe benefits assessed; (ab) an order

D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

144, to the income assessed, or to the amount of tax determined, or to the amount of loss computed, or to the status under which he is assessed; (aa) an order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 115WE or section 115WF, where the assessee, being an employer objects to the value of fringe benefits assessed; (ab) an order

D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

144, to the income assessed, or to the amount of tax determined, or to the amount of loss computed, or to the status under which he is assessed; (aa) an order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 115WE or section 115WF, where the assessee, being an employer objects to the value of fringe benefits assessed; (ab) an order

THE HALDHAR FOODS(P) LTD.,FEROZPUR CANTT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-III(5), FEROZPUR

In the result, the appeal i

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

271(B) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong, illegal and baseless because this the assessee has reasonable cause for not getting the books audited under section 44AB of the I.T. Act, 1961 in time due the reasons beyond his control. Since the assessee had reasonable cause for not getting the books of accounts audited hence penalty levied

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

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

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 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

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