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

271(1)(b) - non-compliance of the notices issued u/s. 142(1) - Penalty u/s 271F - non-filing of the Return of Income - HELD THAT:- Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear in as much as that levy of Penalty is discretionary and not automatic. The said conclusion is further justified by Section

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

271(1)(b) - non-compliance of the notices issued u/s. 142(1) - Penalty u/s 271F - non-filing of the Return of Income - HELD THAT:- Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear in as much as that levy of Penalty is discretionary and not automatic. The said conclusion is further justified by Section

SMT. PRITPAL KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), JALANDHAR

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

271(1)(c). 10. In the present case, the appellant assesse was in default by not filing return of income in prescribed time as per section 148 of the Act. Consequently, it clearly falls within the ambit of section 271F. From the material available on record, it is clear that the appellant participated in the penalty proceeding, however failed

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

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

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

Section 271(l)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interference on our part. ” 7.2.5 The fact that the assessee was carrying on business and the surrender is in respect of his business notings

SHRI ADIL KHURSHID BHAT,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

271(1)(b) dated 27/06/2024 and passed u/s 271F dated 27/06/2024, respectively. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 579 to 581/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 ITA 579/Asr/ 2024: 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. The action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC in passing the order under section

SH ADIL KHURSHID BHAT,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

271(1)(b) dated 27/06/2024 and passed u/s 271F dated 27/06/2024, respectively. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 579 to 581/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 ITA 579/Asr/ 2024: 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. The action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC in passing the order under section

SHRI ADIL KHURSHID BHAT,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

271(1)(b) dated 27/06/2024 and passed u/s 271F dated 27/06/2024, respectively. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 579 to 581/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 ITA 579/Asr/ 2024: 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. The action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC in passing the order under section