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

19-26] 7. Subsequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of an amount of Rs. 30000/- was levied vide order passed by the AO on 19.09.2022 against three defaults in respect of not replying to notice u/s 142(1) dated 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022. 8. That the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is not mandatory rather is discretionary provided

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

19-26] 7. Subsequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of an amount of Rs. 30000/- was levied vide order passed by the AO on 19.09.2022 against three defaults in respect of not replying to notice u/s 142(1) dated 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022. 8. That the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is not mandatory rather is discretionary provided

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

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

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 AMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty amounting to Rs.5,79,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A on the declared income in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act after ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT search and failed to appreciate the facts that

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty amounting to Rs.5,79,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A on the declared income in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act after ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT search and failed to appreciate the facts that

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty amounting to Rs.5,79,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A on the declared income in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act after ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT search and failed to appreciate the facts that

SH. KASTURI LAL MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty amounting to Rs.5,79,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A on the declared income in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act after ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT search and failed to appreciate the facts that

SH AMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty amounting to Rs.5,79,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A on the declared income in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act after ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT search and failed to appreciate the facts that

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty amounting to Rs.5,79,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A on the declared income in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act after ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT search and failed to appreciate the facts that

SH AMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty amounting to Rs.5,79,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A on the declared income in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act after ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT search and failed to appreciate the facts that

SH. KASTURI LAL MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty amounting to Rs.5,79,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A on the declared income in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act after ITA Nos.46/Asr/2017 & 190/Asr/2015, Kasturi Lal Mahajan & Ors. Vs. DCIT search and failed to appreciate the facts that

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

19. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has admitted that what was recorded in the impounded document towards debit side and credit side is investment outside regular books of account, although nature of said investment is not known to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we are of the considered view that either the Assessing Officer

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

19. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has admitted that what was recorded in the impounded document towards debit side and credit side is investment outside regular books of account, although nature of said investment is not known to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we are of the considered view that either the Assessing Officer

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

19. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has admitted that what was recorded in the impounded document towards debit side and credit side is investment outside regular books of account, although nature of said investment is not known to the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we are of the considered view that either the Assessing Officer