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) read with section 274 of the Act is bad in law as it does not specify 7 ITAs No.591/ASR/2017 and 455/ASR/2018 whether the penalty have been initiated for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.2 Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench

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

92-127 of compilation of judgement already on record) Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors • DCIT Vs. Shree Bhagwati Machines Pvt. Ltd. fITA No. 296-301 /Jp/20221 fITAT Jaipur/ (Refer page no. 128-172 of compilation of judgement already on record) 15. It is further submitted that as against above aggregate peak of Rs. 1,40,65000/- from

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

92-127 of compilation of judgement already on record) Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors • DCIT Vs. Shree Bhagwati Machines Pvt. Ltd. fITA No. 296-301 /Jp/20221 fITAT Jaipur/ (Refer page no. 128-172 of compilation of judgement already on record) 15. It is further submitted that as against above aggregate peak of Rs. 1,40,65000/- from

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

92-127 of compilation of judgement already on record) Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors • DCIT Vs. Shree Bhagwati Machines Pvt. Ltd. fITA No. 296-301 /Jp/20221 fITAT Jaipur/ (Refer page no. 128-172 of compilation of judgement already on record) 15. It is further submitted that as against above aggregate peak of Rs. 1,40,65000/- from

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

92-127 of compilation of judgement already on record) Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors • DCIT Vs. Shree Bhagwati Machines Pvt. Ltd. fITA No. 296-301 /Jp/20221 fITAT Jaipur/ (Refer page no. 128-172 of compilation of judgement already on record) 15. It is further submitted that as against above aggregate peak of Rs. 1,40,65000/- from

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

92-127 of compilation of judgement already on record) Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors • DCIT Vs. Shree Bhagwati Machines Pvt. Ltd. fITA No. 296-301 /Jp/20221 fITAT Jaipur/ (Refer page no. 128-172 of compilation of judgement already on record) 15. It is further submitted that as against above aggregate peak of Rs. 1,40,65000/- from

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

92-127 of compilation of judgement already on record) Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors • DCIT Vs. Shree Bhagwati Machines Pvt. Ltd. fITA No. 296-301 /Jp/20221 fITAT Jaipur/ (Refer page no. 128-172 of compilation of judgement already on record) 15. It is further submitted that as against above aggregate peak of Rs. 1,40,65000/- from

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

92-127 of compilation of judgement already on record) Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors • DCIT Vs. Shree Bhagwati Machines Pvt. Ltd. fITA No. 296-301 /Jp/20221 fITAT Jaipur/ (Refer page no. 128-172 of compilation of judgement already on record) 15. It is further submitted that as against above aggregate peak of Rs. 1,40,65000/- from

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

92-127 of compilation of judgement already on record) Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors • DCIT Vs. Shree Bhagwati Machines Pvt. Ltd. fITA No. 296-301 /Jp/20221 fITAT Jaipur/ (Refer page no. 128-172 of compilation of judgement already on record) 15. It is further submitted that as against above aggregate peak of Rs. 1,40,65000/- from

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

92-127 of compilation of judgement already on record) Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors • DCIT Vs. Shree Bhagwati Machines Pvt. Ltd. fITA No. 296-301 /Jp/20221 fITAT Jaipur/ (Refer page no. 128-172 of compilation of judgement already on record) 15. It is further submitted that as against above aggregate peak of Rs. 1,40,65000/- from

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

92-127 of compilation of judgement already on record) Late Sh. Gurmail Singh v. Dy. CIT & Ors • DCIT Vs. Shree Bhagwati Machines Pvt. Ltd. fITA No. 296-301 /Jp/20221 fITAT Jaipur/ (Refer page no. 128-172 of compilation of judgement already on record) 15. It is further submitted that as against above aggregate peak of Rs. 1,40,65000/- from

THE HOSHIARPUR CENTRAL COOP BANK LIMITED,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE, HOSHIARPUR

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

section 271(l)(c) on wholly erroneous and insufficient grounds. 2. That contrary to facts on record, the Id.CIT(A) grossly erred to hold that the assessee did not declare true particulars of income and no bonafide explanation could be filed. 3. That the additions made in assessment, being revenue neutral, besides being debatable in nature, the levy of impugned

SH. SURESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O. SH. RAKHA RAM,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), FARIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

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

section 147 are not applicable. So, the re-opening as well as re-assessment is liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AOhas re-opened the case of the assessee only on the basis of the bank deposits in ICICI Bank without giving the finding that

SH.SURESH KUMAR SHARMA.S/O SH. RAKHA RAM,KOTKAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (3), FAIDKOT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

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

section 147 are not applicable. So, the re-opening as well as re-assessment is liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AOhas re-opened the case of the assessee only on the basis of the bank deposits in ICICI Bank without giving the finding that

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are, therefore, initiated on this issue.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) the relevant paragraph 15 of the CIT(A) order is extracted as below: “15 ISSUE 8: DISALLOWANCEOFDEPRECIATIONOFRS.18,92,163/- ANDRS. 3,10,253/- U/S