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

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

69, Mohali Jalandhar. [PAN: BFNPK9092] (Appellant) (Respendent) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR. Respondent by Sh. DR Date of Hearing 14.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20 .07.2021 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This bunch of appeals is filed by the assessee against the order even dated 21.06.2021, passed by the CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana. 2. The assessee has raised

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

69, Mohali Jalandhar. [PAN: BFNPK9092] (Appellant) (Respendent) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR. Respondent by Sh. DR Date of Hearing 14.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20 .07.2021 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This bunch of appeals is filed by the assessee against the order even dated 21.06.2021, passed by the CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana. 2. The assessee has raised

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

69, Mohali Jalandhar. [PAN: BFNPK9092] (Appellant) (Respendent) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR. Respondent by Sh. DR Date of Hearing 14.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20 .07.2021 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This bunch of appeals is filed by the assessee against the order even dated 21.06.2021, passed by the CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana. 2. The assessee has raised

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

69, Mohali Jalandhar. [PAN: BFNPK9092] (Appellant) (Respendent) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR. Respondent by Sh. DR Date of Hearing 14.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20 .07.2021 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This bunch of appeals is filed by the assessee against the order even dated 21.06.2021, passed by the CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana. 2. The assessee has raised

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

69, Mohali Jalandhar. [PAN: BFNPK9092] (Appellant) (Respendent) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR. Respondent by Sh. DR Date of Hearing 14.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20 .07.2021 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This bunch of appeals is filed by the assessee against the order even dated 21.06.2021, passed by the CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana. 2. The assessee has raised

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

69, Mohali Jalandhar. [PAN: BFNPK9092] (Appellant) (Respendent) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR. Respondent by Sh. DR Date of Hearing 14.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20 .07.2021 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This bunch of appeals is filed by the assessee against the order even dated 21.06.2021, passed by the CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana. 2. The assessee has raised

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

section 69 of the Act are entirely inapplicable.” 6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 7 7. In this ground no. 7, the ld. AR for the assessee specifically mentioned that the assessee was not maintaining any books of account. The addition was made on basis of the bank statement

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

section 69 of the Act are entirely inapplicable.” 6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 7 7. In this ground no. 7, the ld. AR for the assessee specifically mentioned that the assessee was not maintaining any books of account. The addition was made on basis of the bank statement

M/S SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS ,JALALABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the tax sought to be evaded on the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- which was estimated by the AO as alleged initial investment trading in paddy, rice and their bye-products without rebutting the contentions of the assessee raised during the course of assessment as well

MEASAGE. SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the tax sought to be evaded on the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- which was estimated by the AO as alleged initial investment trading in paddy, rice and their bye-products without rebutting the contentions of the assessee raised during the course of assessment as well

MEASEG. SURINDER SAT AGRO FOODS ,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the tax sought to be evaded on the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- which was estimated by the AO as alleged initial investment trading in paddy, rice and their bye-products without rebutting the contentions of the assessee raised during the course of assessment as well

M/S ALFA MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALS ENGINEERING WORKS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

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

section 271(1)(c) before the ITAT. The ld, CIT(A) first served the order related to penalty. The assessee was waiting for quantum appeal as per advice of consultant. The wrong advice of the consultant may cause the delay for filing the appeal. The Revenue has not made any objection related to condonation of delay for 149 days. Accordingly

MESERS ALFA MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALS ENGINEERING WORKS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD 3 (1), SRINAGAR

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

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

section 271(1)(c) before the ITAT. The ld, CIT(A) first served the order related to penalty. The assessee was waiting for quantum appeal as per advice of consultant. The wrong advice of the consultant may cause the delay for filing the appeal. The Revenue has not made any objection related to condonation of delay for 149 days. Accordingly

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 69 of I.T.Act, 1961, the same is added back to the income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The assessee has concealed his income for the year from tax and not offered to tax, I have therefore reasons to believe that the assessee has concealed income of Rs.19,02,450/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 133/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

69 and 69A of the I.T.Act respectively. [ Addition : Rs.37,46,491/-]” 5.1 The ld. AR vehemently argued and placed that the ld. AO without considering our submission and without allowing the reasonable opportunity the addition was made during the impugned assessment year. He further draws our attention in para 5 of the assessment order which is extracted as below

MILLENNIUM REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAA of the Act. 4. In appeal, CIT appeal has confirmed the addition by observing as under: 3.1 Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 & 2 pertain to assessment of surrendered income of Rs. 1.16 Crores as assessable u/s 69A and not allowing the set-off of the business loss from this income. The AO has mentioned that