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

penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified. As find that similar view was followed in a series of decisions as has been relied by the ld. AR for the assessee in his submission. Thus, considering the fact that assessment in the present case was completed u/s 153A/143(3) in accepting return of income, find 16

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

penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified. As find that similar view was followed in a series of decisions as has been relied by the ld. AR for the assessee in his submission. Thus, considering the fact that assessment in the present case was completed u/s 153A/143(3) in accepting return of income, find 16

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. 80G - which the AO may verify for its authenticity, the AO shall compute the tax sought to be evaded under Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) by reckoning the tax rebate as applicable to a section 80G donation. We decide accordingly. The third and final disallowance qua which the penalty stands levied is in respect of depreciation allowance

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) read with section 274 of the Act is bad in law as it does not specify 7 ITAs No.591/ASR/2017 and 455/ASR/2018 whether the penalty have been initiated for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.2 Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench

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) read with section 274 of the Act is bad in law as it does not specify 7 ITAs No.591/ASR/2017 and 455/ASR/2018 whether the penalty have been initiated for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.2 Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench

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

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

16. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to sustain additions to the extent of Rs.36.25 lakhs for the assessment year 2015-16 towards undisclosed income. The assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.73.13 lakhs as on 25.03.2016 which is relevant to the assessment year 2016- 17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called

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

16. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to sustain additions to the extent of Rs.36.25 lakhs for the assessment year 2015-16 towards undisclosed income. The assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.73.13 lakhs as on 25.03.2016 which is relevant to the assessment year 2016- 17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called

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

16. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to sustain additions to the extent of Rs.36.25 lakhs for the assessment year 2015-16 towards undisclosed income. The assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.73.13 lakhs as on 25.03.2016 which is relevant to the assessment year 2016- 17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called

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

16. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to sustain additions to the extent of Rs.36.25 lakhs for the assessment year 2015-16 towards undisclosed income. The assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.73.13 lakhs as on 25.03.2016 which is relevant to the assessment year 2016- 17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called

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

16. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to sustain additions to the extent of Rs.36.25 lakhs for the assessment year 2015-16 towards undisclosed income. The assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.73.13 lakhs as on 25.03.2016 which is relevant to the assessment year 2016- 17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called

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

16. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to sustain additions to the extent of Rs.36.25 lakhs for the assessment year 2015-16 towards undisclosed income. The assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.73.13 lakhs as on 25.03.2016 which is relevant to the assessment year 2016- 17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called

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

16. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to sustain additions to the extent of Rs.36.25 lakhs for the assessment year 2015-16 towards undisclosed income. The assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.73.13 lakhs as on 25.03.2016 which is relevant to the assessment year 2016- 17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called

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

16. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to sustain additions to the extent of Rs.36.25 lakhs for the assessment year 2015-16 towards undisclosed income. The assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.73.13 lakhs as on 25.03.2016 which is relevant to the assessment year 2016- 17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called

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

16. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to sustain additions to the extent of Rs.36.25 lakhs for the assessment year 2015-16 towards undisclosed income. The assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.73.13 lakhs as on 25.03.2016 which is relevant to the assessment year 2016- 17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called

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

16. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to sustain additions to the extent of Rs.36.25 lakhs for the assessment year 2015-16 towards undisclosed income. The assessee has worked out peak credit of Rs.73.13 lakhs as on 25.03.2016 which is relevant to the assessment year 2016- 17, on the basis of net of debit and credit entries from so called

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), AMRITSAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri L.P Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Assessing officer with the approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range III, dated 08.03.2016 is illegal. 2. That no proper satisfaction was recorded by the learned Assessing Officer in the Assessment order or in the notice U/s 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Income

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