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. b) 3

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. b) 3

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

section 271(1B) - which relates only to penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), does not, as explained, operate to remove the need for the prima facie satisfaction on the part of the authority initiating the penalty proceedings. In fine, the law, per its clear language, as well as, as explained per a series of decisions by the Apex Court, settling

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. 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

SHRI GULZAR SINGH , GURBACHAN SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

section 271(1) (c ) could not imposed and confirming of penalty U/s 271(1)(c ) on disallowance of shop expenses and cash discount is unjustified and liable to be deleted. (e) That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard off or disposed off.” 3

SHRI GULZAR SINGH. GURBACHAN SINGH,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

section 271(1) (c ) could not imposed and confirming of penalty U/s 271(1)(c ) on disallowance of shop expenses and cash discount is unjustified and liable to be deleted. (e) That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard off or disposed off.” 3

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

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

3. That the learned AO has wrongly imposed the penalty on the assessee under section 271 (1)(c) because the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of his income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The AO had assessed the income of the assessee by applying flat rate of 8% on his gross receipts and assessed income on estimated

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

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

3. That the learned AO has wrongly imposed the penalty on the assessee under section 271 (1)(c) because the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of his income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The AO had assessed the income of the assessee by applying flat rate of 8% on his gross receipts and assessed income on estimated

SHRI YASH PAUL MALHOTRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

3) of the Act on a total income of Rs.96,04,900/- with a minor addition of Rs.98,557/- on account of estimated one fourth disallowance for car expenses and depreciation. However, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) initiated in the assessment order itself for concealment of income. 3.3 Subsequently, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed amounting to Rs.17.68 lakhs

M/S. CHAUDHARY ENTERPRISES,,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid

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

section 275(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That when the ld. A.O had not specified the charge and vaguely initiated penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have knocked down the levy of penalty on this very ground. 3

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

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short ’the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(i)(c) of the Act, the penalty

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

Section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra) was overruled." 8. In view of the above, we hold that the observation and finding of the Ld. CIT(A) are perverse to the facts on record in respect of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs.39,504/- imposed

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 u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being recorded by the AO to suspect and not to belief; non-service of notice issued u/s 148. Approval of the PCIT u/s 151(2) of the Act, and one Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors additional legal ground that Notice u/s

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 u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being recorded by the AO to suspect and not to belief; non-service of notice issued u/s 148. Approval of the PCIT u/s 151(2) of the Act, and one Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors additional legal ground that Notice u/s

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 u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on account of invalid reason being recorded by the AO to suspect and not to belief; non-service of notice issued u/s 148. Approval of the PCIT u/s 151(2) of the Act, and one Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors additional legal ground that Notice u/s