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

15. The AO was not satisfied with the reply of the appellant in response to notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) whereby the appellant was asked as to why the penalty in default of notice u/s 142(1) should not be levied and consequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of an amount of Rs. 30000/- was levied vide order

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

15. The AO was not satisfied with the reply of the appellant in response to notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(b) whereby the appellant was asked as to why the penalty in default of notice u/s 142(1) should not be levied and consequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of an amount of Rs. 30000/- was levied vide order

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

2 is therefore not maintainable. Further, without prejudice to the above, the plea as to non-strike off of one of the two limbs on which a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) becomes leviable, is even otherwise not maintainable in the facts of the case. This is, as apparent, and as also evident from the assessment and the penalty 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

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

PUNEET SAHDEV,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

SHRI CHANDAN BHARDWAJ,TARN TARAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

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

15. In our view, the penalty is not imposable under section 271(1) (c) of the Act for year under consideration and it is liable to be quashed on the ground that the AO has failed to apply his mind by even not bothering to strike one of the allegations and thus fails to record satisfaction in the penalty proceedings

SH. JINDER PAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), AMRITSAR

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

15. In our view, the penalty is not imposable under section 271(1) (c) of the Act for year under consideration and it is liable to be quashed on the ground that the AO has failed to apply his mind by even not bothering to strike one of the allegations and thus fails to record satisfaction in the penalty proceedings

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

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

2,00,000/- 10.09.2010 Lash deposited, Raipur 3,00,000/- 13.09.2010 Chq withdrawal, Self, Asr 7,00,000/- 16.09.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 3,00,000/- 24.09.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 5,00,000/- 24.09.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur 40,000/- 27.09.2010 Chq withdrawal, Self, Asr 8,50,000/- 5 Sukhdev Singh v. ITO 28.09.2010 Cash deposited, Raipur

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

15 days after date of search along with affidavit and stated that admission taken during the course of search is by coercion and undue influence, but not based on evidences gathered during the course of search. In the retraction letter dated 18.06.2016 and affidavit dated 04.08.2016, the assessee has explained manner in which statement was recorded u/s.132

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

15 days after date of search along with affidavit and stated that admission taken during the course of search is by coercion and undue influence, but not based on evidences gathered during the course of search. In the retraction letter dated 18.06.2016 and affidavit dated 04.08.2016, the assessee has explained manner in which statement was recorded u/s.132

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

15 days after date of search along with affidavit and stated that admission taken during the course of search is by coercion and undue influence, but not based on evidences gathered during the course of search. In the retraction letter dated 18.06.2016 and affidavit dated 04.08.2016, the assessee has explained manner in which statement was recorded u/s.132

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

15 days after date of search along with affidavit and stated that admission taken during the course of search is by coercion and undue influence, but not based on evidences gathered during the course of search. In the retraction letter dated 18.06.2016 and affidavit dated 04.08.2016, the assessee has explained manner in which statement was recorded u/s.132

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

15 days after date of search along with affidavit and stated that admission taken during the course of search is by coercion and undue influence, but not based on evidences gathered during the course of search. In the retraction letter dated 18.06.2016 and affidavit dated 04.08.2016, the assessee has explained manner in which statement was recorded u/s.132

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

15 days after date of search along with affidavit and stated that admission taken during the course of search is by coercion and undue influence, but not based on evidences gathered during the course of search. In the retraction letter dated 18.06.2016 and affidavit dated 04.08.2016, the assessee has explained manner in which statement was recorded u/s.132

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

15 days after date of search along with affidavit and stated that admission taken during the course of search is by coercion and undue influence, but not based on evidences gathered during the course of search. In the retraction letter dated 18.06.2016 and affidavit dated 04.08.2016, the assessee has explained manner in which statement was recorded u/s.132