SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of three issues viz. (i) addition/disallowance of bogus purchases: Rs. 2,38,60,205/- (ii). addition towards unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act: Rs. 51,34,260/-; and (iii). addition/disallowance of cash

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of three issues viz. (i) addition/disallowance of bogus purchases: Rs. 2,38,60,205/- (ii). addition towards unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act: Rs. 51,34,260/-; and (iii). addition/disallowance of cash

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh

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

unexplained investment being either made in the properties were out of books of accounts or other tangible or intangible Assets. In view of that matter we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts on record and he was not furnished in confirming the addition. Late Sh. Gurmail Singh

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

unexplained cash credits of Rs. 18,16,500/-), as well as upheld the addition of Rs. 34,242/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bank interest. 4. The Assessing Officer after receiving the order of the CIT(A) called upon the assessee to explain as to why penalty u/s 271

MRS. MALTI GUPTA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER,WARD-III(4), JALANDHAR

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

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

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) for concealment at Rs. P a g e | 2 ITA No.757/Asr./2017 Mrs. Malti Gupta, Jalandhar 1,10,521/- without appreciating the explanation giving including relevant case laws. 2. We find that the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer involves a delay of 24 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay

MESERS J.P INDUSTRIES,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

unexplained expenditure of the assessee and the amount is deemed to be the income of the assessee u/s 69C of the Act. Hence the amount is added back to the returned income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income to that extent are initiated I.T.A. No. 305/Asr/2019

M/S J. P. INDUSTRIES ,JALALABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - II, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

unexplained expenditure of the assessee and the amount is deemed to be the income of the assessee u/s 69C of the Act. Hence the amount is added back to the returned income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income to that extent are initiated I.T.A. No. 305/Asr/2019

M/S J P INDUSTRIES,JALABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - II, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

unexplained expenditure of the assessee and the amount is deemed to be the income of the assessee u/s 69C of the Act. Hence the amount is added back to the returned income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income to that extent are initiated I.T.A. No. 305/Asr/2019

MEASAGE J.P. INDUSTRIES.,JALALABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

unexplained expenditure of the assessee and the amount is deemed to be the income of the assessee u/s 69C of the Act. Hence the amount is added back to the returned income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income to that extent are initiated I.T.A. No. 305/Asr/2019