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

Section 273B we have no hesitation in deleting the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F of the Act since “reasonable cause” is clearly demonstrated by the assessee. Therefore the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F are deleted. - Appeal of assessee allowed.” 20

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

Section 273B we have no hesitation in deleting the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F of the Act since “reasonable cause” is clearly demonstrated by the assessee. Therefore the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F are deleted. - Appeal of assessee allowed.” 20

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

Section 273B we have no hesitation in deleting the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F of the Act since “reasonable cause” is clearly demonstrated by the assessee. Therefore the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F are deleted. - Appeal of assessee allowed.” 20

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

Section 273B we have no hesitation in deleting the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F of the Act since “reasonable cause” is clearly demonstrated by the assessee. Therefore the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s. 271F are deleted. - Appeal of assessee allowed.” 20

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

20 ITA No. 548 (Asr)/2016 (AY 2009-10) Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills v. Asst. CIT penalty, and which is therefore to be duly recorded (in the order imposing penalty) in-as-much as the same appears to be the purpose for insertion of section 271(1B) on the statute, as explained in the Memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance

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

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

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. Thus, the penalties levies in both the cases

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

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

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. Thus, the penalties levies in both the cases

SHRI AJAYA KUMAR CHADDA ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 271(l)(c) penalty was proposed to be imposed and thus it would lead to an inference of non- application of mind, thus vitiating the imposition of penalty. Recently, the Ld. ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of I.G. International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT IT A No. 123/Mum/2023 vide order dated 30.05.2023 has taken the similar view by setting

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

20,300/- for concealment of particulars of income. 3. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 17.10.2016, affirmed the levy of penalty by dismissing the appeal of the assessee, against which the assessee has filed the instant appeal as ITA No.46/Asr/2017, by raising the following grounds of appeal. “1. 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

20,300/- for concealment of particulars of income. 3. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 17.10.2016, affirmed the levy of penalty by dismissing the appeal of the assessee, against which the assessee has filed the instant appeal as ITA No.46/Asr/2017, by raising the following grounds of appeal. “1. 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

20,300/- for concealment of particulars of income. 3. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 17.10.2016, affirmed the levy of penalty by dismissing the appeal of the assessee, against which the assessee has filed the instant appeal as ITA No.46/Asr/2017, by raising the following grounds of appeal. “1. 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

20,300/- for concealment of particulars of income. 3. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 17.10.2016, affirmed the levy of penalty by dismissing the appeal of the assessee, against which the assessee has filed the instant appeal as ITA No.46/Asr/2017, by raising the following grounds of appeal. “1. 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

20,300/- for concealment of particulars of income. 3. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 17.10.2016, affirmed the levy of penalty by dismissing the appeal of the assessee, against which the assessee has filed the instant appeal as ITA No.46/Asr/2017, by raising the following grounds of appeal. “1. 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

20,300/- for concealment of particulars of income. 3. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 17.10.2016, affirmed the levy of penalty by dismissing the appeal of the assessee, against which the assessee has filed the instant appeal as ITA No.46/Asr/2017, by raising the following grounds of appeal. “1. 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

20,300/- for concealment of particulars of income. 3. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 17.10.2016, affirmed the levy of penalty by dismissing the appeal of the assessee, against which the assessee has filed the instant appeal as ITA No.46/Asr/2017, by raising the following grounds of appeal. “1. 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

20,300/- for concealment of particulars of income. 3. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 17.10.2016, affirmed the levy of penalty by dismissing the appeal of the assessee, against which the assessee has filed the instant appeal as ITA No.46/Asr/2017, by raising the following grounds of appeal. “1. That

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

20. From the above, it is evident that as against aggregate peak of Rs. 1,40,65000/- (Rs.70,32,500/- each) from the diary in all the years, the appellants have already disclosed income of Rs. 3 crores in aggregate in their ITRs for AY 2014-15 and paid taxes based on the alleged incriminating documents/diaries during the survey. Thus

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

20. From the above, it is evident that as against aggregate peak of Rs. 1,40,65000/- (Rs.70,32,500/- each) from the diary in all the years, the appellants have already disclosed income of Rs. 3 crores in aggregate in their ITRs for AY 2014-15 and paid taxes based on the alleged incriminating documents/diaries during the survey. Thus

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

20. From the above, it is evident that as against aggregate peak of Rs. 1,40,65000/- (Rs.70,32,500/- each) from the diary in all the years, the appellants have already disclosed income of Rs. 3 crores in aggregate in their ITRs for AY 2014-15 and paid taxes based on the alleged incriminating documents/diaries during the survey. Thus

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

20. From the above, it is evident that as against aggregate peak of Rs. 1,40,65000/- (Rs.70,32,500/- each) from the diary in all the years, the appellants have already disclosed income of Rs. 3 crores in aggregate in their ITRs for AY 2014-15 and paid taxes based on the alleged incriminating documents/diaries during the survey. Thus