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

c) That the same facts have been admitted by the AO that the deposits in the bank account are not the turnover of the assessee which is visualized from the fact that the AO has not invoked the penalty u/s 271B i.e. failure to get the accounts audited meaning thereby that the AO has taken into consideration the binding circular

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

c) That the same facts have been admitted by the AO that the deposits in the bank account are not the turnover of the assessee which is visualized from the fact that the AO has not invoked the penalty u/s 271B i.e. failure to get the accounts audited meaning thereby that the AO has taken into consideration the binding circular

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

u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. 6 Sukhdev Singh v. ITO 6. Having heard the ld. additional CIT DR, perusal of record and impugned order, we find that undisputedly, assessee’s income has been estimated considering the deposits made in the bank account under section 44 A.D. of the Income Tax Act. In our view, penalty under section 271

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

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

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

27. Since, the appellant assesse gets relief on merits and hence, the legal issued rendered academic and not adjudicated. In ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019: 28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year

INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) -1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL, SHAHKOT

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos

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

section 153D of the Act. Accordingly, the quantum appeal is not sustained as per the order of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench bearing ITA No. 112 to 118/Asr/2018 date of pronouncement 16.08.2021. So, the notice initiated by the ld. AO was duly deviated from the fact which is not at all sustained after the order of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench