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 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

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 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

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

section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

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

section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

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

section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

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

section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

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

section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

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 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

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 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that in every case mere surrender of income will foreclose any action of concealment of income. The penalty is levied on the basis of the relevant material and revised return was filed on coming to know about the detection of the concealment and the assessee cannot escape

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings and such disclosure is accepted by the revenue without any change then no case of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be made out against the assessee. The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (393 ITR 1) wherein

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings and such disclosure is accepted by the revenue without any change then no case of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be made out against the assessee. The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (393 ITR 1) wherein

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings and such disclosure is accepted by the revenue without any change then no case of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be made out against the assessee. The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (393 ITR 1) wherein

HIMANI GOYA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings and such disclosure is accepted by the revenue without any change then no case of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be made out against the assessee. The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (393 ITR 1) wherein

HIMANI GOYAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings and such disclosure is accepted by the revenue without any change then no case of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be made out against the assessee. The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (393 ITR 1) wherein

SHRIMATI. LATA NARANG,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271, Nizatam Nagar, Income Tax, Jalandhar-1. Backside KGS Palace, Basti Nau, Jalandhar, Punjab [PAN: AEYPN 0415J] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Respondent by : Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 16.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 02.03.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

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

reassessment are held to be devoid of any merits and substance and therefore, same are as such rejected. 12. In ground no. 3 & 4, the assessee has challenged approval granted by the CIT u/s 151 for issuing notice u/s 147 as bad in law. This issue of approval granted u/s 151 of the Income

SAINIK COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,SAINIK COLONY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD-1, JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 149(1)(b) stands violated in this case. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions of 5 I.T.A. Nos. 701 & 406/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 various courts and Tribunals to argue that if more than three years have lapsed, then the notice u/s 148 can be issued only if value of income escaping is more

SAINIK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU AND KASHMIR

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 149(1)(b) stands violated in this case. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions of 5 I.T.A. Nos. 701 & 406/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 various courts and Tribunals to argue that if more than three years have lapsed, then the notice u/s 148 can be issued only if value of income escaping is more

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

271 (1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income are simultaneously initiated.” 8. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate authority and the Ld. CIT (A), has considered all materials on record and has arrived at the conclusion that in absence of any material brought on record there is not even a single evidence