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

147 has been served by way of affixture. The copy of order of affixture is enclosed at page no 18. 6. That the appellant was served with notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) asking the appellant as to why the penalty in default of notice u/s 142(1) should not be levied. In response to the said notice

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

147 has been served by way of affixture. The copy of order of affixture is enclosed at page no 18. 6. That the appellant was served with notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) asking the appellant as to why the penalty in default of notice u/s 142(1) should not be levied. In response to the said notice

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

147, dated 26.03.2013. ITA 05/Asr/2013 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 10/10/2012 Assessment order u/s 143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

147, dated 26.03.2013. ITA 05/Asr/2013 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 10/10/2012 Assessment order u/s 143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

147, dated 26.03.2013. ITA 05/Asr/2013 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 10/10/2012 Assessment order u/s 143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

147, dated 26.03.2013. ITA 05/Asr/2013 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 10/10/2012 Assessment order u/s 143(3), (Assessee) dated 30.12.2011. ITA 579/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),dated (Assessee) 11/03/2014. ITA 547/Asr/2016 A.Y 2009-10 CIT(Appeals),Jammu– Order dated 30/06/2016 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue

SH. VISHWA MITTER SEKHRI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), AMRITSAR.

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 75/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

penalty proceedings by the AO under Section 271 (1)c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without giving the reasonable opportunity to be heard to the assessee. 6. 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

147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section.]” Insofar the mode and manner of service of a notice issued under Sec. 148 of the Act is concerned, the same can be traced in Sec. 282 of the Act and Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which reads as under : “282 (1) The service