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

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

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

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

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

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

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

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

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

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

iii) Upon due consideration, the above explanation cannot be accepted and is rejected. The appellant is engaged in trading in jewellery items and most of the sales were admittedly made in Raipur. A reference to the statement of account of YES Bank shows that most of the cash has been deposited in Raipur and withdrawn through self cheques at Amritsar

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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

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

iii ITO vs. M/s Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009 (IT.AT Delhi E) iv. CIT vs. M/s Goyanka Lime and Chemical ITA No. 82 of 2012 (MP). “3.3 I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the appellant and to begin with non-service of notice has not been established by the appellant whereas

SHRI BHARAT PAL SOOD,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PHAGWARA

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Sood

iii) of the I.T.Act was deleted by him. Insofar, the addition of Rs. 34,242/- made on account of bank interest was concerned, the same was confirmed by the CIT(A). In sum and substance, the CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 9,18,900/- (out of unexplained cash credits of Rs. 18,16,500/-), as well as upheld

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

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-tax Act, 1961 as no correct charge has been made against the assessee.” As the assessee by raising the additional grounds of appeal

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR ,JALANDHAR 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

14 that the AO had 'sufficient grounds to assume jurisdiction u/s 153C' in view of the fact that even the premises of the assessee were subject to search. That the jurisdiction u/s 153A/ 153C cannot be assumed differently for every document and notice ought to have been issued based upon totality of facts of the case Ground No. 3That

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

14 that the AO had 'sufficient grounds to assume jurisdiction u/s 153C' in view of the fact that even the premises of the assessee were subject to search. That the jurisdiction u/s 153A/ 153C cannot be assumed differently for every document and notice ought to have been issued based upon totality of facts of the case Ground No. 3That