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

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

u/s 271(1)(C) is wrong illegal and against facts and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 2. That Ld. AO while imposing the penalty has not considered the facts of the case and proceeded to impose the penalty arbitrarily. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts while confirming the same

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 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been initiated.” In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we concur with the ld. A.R, that the A.O had both in the body of the assessment order, as well as vide his “SCN”, dated 19.02.2004 failed to put the assessee firm to notice as regards the specific default

SH. KASTURI LAL MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

u/s 274 rws 271(1)© of the Act and held that notice issued under Section 274 should satisfy the grounds which the assessee has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended if the show cause notice is vague and on the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. For the sake

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

u/s 274 rws 271(1)© of the Act and held that notice issued under Section 274 should satisfy the grounds which the assessee has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended if the show cause notice is vague and on the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. For the sake

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

u/s 274 rws 271(1)© of the Act and held that notice issued under Section 274 should satisfy the grounds which the assessee has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended if the show cause notice is vague and on the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. For the sake

SH SUMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

u/s 274 rws 271(1)© of the Act and held that notice issued under Section 274 should satisfy the grounds which the assessee has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended if the show cause notice is vague and on the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. For the sake

SH. KASTURI LAL MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

u/s 274 rws 271(1)© of the Act and held that notice issued under Section 274 should satisfy the grounds which the assessee has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended if the show cause notice is vague and on the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. For the sake

SH AMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

u/s 274 rws 271(1)© of the Act and held that notice issued under Section 274 should satisfy the grounds which the assessee has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended if the show cause notice is vague and on the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. For the sake

SH AMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

u/s 274 rws 271(1)© of the Act and held that notice issued under Section 274 should satisfy the grounds which the assessee has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended if the show cause notice is vague and on the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. For the sake

SH AMIT MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

u/s 274 rws 271(1)© of the Act and held that notice issued under Section 274 should satisfy the grounds which the assessee has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended if the show cause notice is vague and on the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. For the sake

SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 reads as under:- “Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for Assessment Year 2007-08 it appears to me that – …… Have concealed the particulars of your income or……………… furnished inaccurate particulars of such income” 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SARWAN SINGH PHILLAUR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 562/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 reads as under:- “Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for Assessment Year 2007-08 it appears to me that – …… Have concealed the particulars of your income or……………… furnished inaccurate particulars of such income” 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), AMRITSAR

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

Bench: Shri L.P Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as no correct charge has been made against the assessee.” As the assessee by raising the additional grounds of appeal has sought adjudication of a legal issue based on the facts borne from the records, therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal

GURU GOBIND SINGH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER (EXEMPTION) , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal i

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita Nos.61 & 62(Asr)/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10 & 2011-12

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for ‘concealing the particulars of Income and thereafter issued the notice u/s 274 without specifying the limb of the penalty imposable and finally imposed the penalty for both of the limbs i.e. concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income, therefore we find it appropriate to decide

GURU GOBIND SINGH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal i

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita Nos.61 & 62(Asr)/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10 & 2011-12

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for ‘concealing the particulars of Income and thereafter issued the notice u/s 274 without specifying the limb of the penalty imposable and finally imposed the penalty for both of the limbs i.e. concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income, therefore we find it appropriate to decide

SHRI BHARAT PAL SOOD,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PHAGWARA

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Sood

section 271 of the I.T.Act, which was issued by the Assessing Officer alongwith the assessment order. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that a perusal of the aforesaid “SCN” dated 23.12.2011 did not reveal the default for which the assessee was called upon to explain as to why penalty may not be imposed upon him us 271

SMT. JANAK RANI DHINGRA,HARYANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 294/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be cancelled. "" """"""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. We find a notice dated 18.12.2008, issued u/s 274 read with section 271

M/S EARTHTECH ENGINEERS,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - VI, PATHANKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 553/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 M/S Earthtech Engineers, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C/O Shri Vaishno Malhotra, Tax, Circle-Vi, Outside Mann Market, Main Pathankot Bazar, Pathankot (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfe1819R Assessee By : Written Submission Revenue By : Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Dr

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and hence not sustainable. 5. The Departmental Representative could not controvert the above submission of Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee. 6. We have heard the rival submissions perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the facts in the present appeal