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 142(1) of the Act. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the act amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in each appeal, on account of non-compliance to notice u/s 142(1) on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 are set aside. 21. In the above view, we accept

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 142(1) of the Act. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(b) of the act amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in each appeal, on account of non-compliance to notice u/s 142(1) on 29.11.2022, 10.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 are set aside. 21. In the above view, we accept

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) is wrong illegal and against facts and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 2. That Ld. AO while imposing the penalty has not considered the facts of the case and proceeded to impose the penalty arbitrarily. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while confirming the same

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) is wrong illegal and against facts and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 2. That Ld. AO while imposing the penalty has not considered the facts of the case and proceeded to impose the penalty arbitrarily. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while confirming the same

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

u/s 271(l)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Although the Ld. DR submitted that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA’S Emerald Meadows (supra) where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been

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

22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

22,40,870/ on dated 16.12.2011. Consequently, the Assessing Officer recorded the satisfaction in the assessment Order and had issued the notice dated 16.12.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and ultimately vide penalty order dated 21.03.2014, levied the penalty 5,79,000/- on the addition of Rs.17

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

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

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. 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

22. In the case of “Ashish Plastic Industries Vs. ACIT”, (Supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: Income-tax Act, 1961 - Section 133A - Course of survey operations – Dishonor of cheques - Sales and closing stock of finished products - It was admitted that the stock as per the books was around excess stock of was accordingly admitted - On this