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

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

253 (Bombay) held that a mere defect in notice of not striking off irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. Since, penalty proceedings culminate under a different statutory scheme that remains distinct from assessment proceedings, therefore, assessee must be informed of grounds of penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. It is further observed that even if notice contains no caveat that

M/S. SURYA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,ABOHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayaftfrcf ^T./Ita No. 348/Asr/2023 / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Surya Automobiles Pvt The Dcit, <Shh Circle Ii, Ltd., Near Dav Campus, Bhatinda Hanumangarh Road, Abohar ^|41<^H./Pan No: Aafcs271 In Ul^^Ff/Respondent Appellant

3) 254 2012-13 7336830.00 29/09/2012 8504379.00 dt. 7336830.00 12/03/2015 Dt03/10/2019 2033-34 7434650.00 27/09/2013 7936430.00 dt. 7516218.00 Dt. 30/07/2019 27/01/2016 348-Asr-2023 Surya Automobiles Pvt Ltd., Abohar 7 It is settled principle of law that penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and no pl u/s Section 271 (1) (c) can be imposed only because no appeal

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMIOSSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

253 (Bombay) where it was held that assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposition of penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned. In section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

253 (Bombay) where it was held that assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposition of penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned. In section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

253 (Bombay) where it was held that assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposition of penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned. In section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

253 (Bombay) where it was held that assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposition of penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned. In section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

253 (Bombay) where it was held that assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposition of penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned. In section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned

SHRIMATI RAVNEET KAUR GREWAL,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

253 (Bombay) where it was held that assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposition of penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned. In section 4 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 271(1)(c), the mere defect in a notice that not striking of irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings. 6. The ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned

THE BARAMULLA CENTRAL COPERATIVE BANK LTD,KASHMIR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

u/s 271(1)(c) was merely if it is incorrect, inadmissible claim has been made in the return and to the all material and facts having been disclosed in the return of income. The Ld. counsel placed reliance on the following case laws: “1. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ajaib Singh and Co. 253 ITR 630 (P&H) 2. Commissioner

SH. PREM PAL GANDHI,NAWANSHAHR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) before the AO, as under: "In inviting reference to your No. DCIT/CC-II/Jai/2014-15/2031, it is submitted that the assessee Prem Pal Gandhi Mg. Director of Walia Traders Private Limited was having imprest account out of which expenses were incurred for and on behalf of company. Moreover M/s. Walia Traders were constructing hotel building

SHRI RAJINDER KUMAR SHARMA,UDHAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER WARD-2(4), UDHAMPUR

In the result, the ITA 175/Asr/2019 is allowed

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

253 (Bombay) held that where assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other, or both grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), a mere defect in notice, not striking off irrelevant matter would vitiate penalty proceedings vide Para 188 by observing as under: “188. We may, in this context, respectfully observe that a contravention

SHIVA MINT INDUSTRIES,,JAMMU vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.649 & 650(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2007-08 & 2009-10

U/s. 253 of the Act (hereinafter called as "the Act"), on feeling aggrieved against the orders dated 9.9.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Amritsar Camp at Jammu (J&K), qua Asst. Years:2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively, by which, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. 2. In both the appeals

M/S SHIVA MINT INDUSTRIES,,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.649 & 650(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2007-08 & 2009-10

U/s. 253 of the Act (hereinafter called as "the Act"), on feeling aggrieved against the orders dated 9.9.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Amritsar Camp at Jammu (J&K), qua Asst. Years:2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively, by which, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. 2. In both the appeals

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S