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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

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

reassessment proceedings were mounted. The levy of penalty was justified hence the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 30. The Ld. AR contended that the cryptic and non-speaking order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated 12.11.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act that was imposed on him for non- compliance of the notices issued u/ss. 148/142(1) of the Act. Before parting, we may also observe, that though the A.O had initiated the reassessment proceedings and assumed jurisdiction on the basis of Notice u/s 148, dated 06.06.2012, however, he had thereafter issued another Notice

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act that was imposed on him for non- compliance of the notices issued u/ss. 148/142(1) of the Act. Before parting, we may also observe, that though the A.O had initiated the reassessment proceedings and assumed jurisdiction on the basis of Notice u/s 148, dated 06.06.2012, however, he had thereafter issued another Notice

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

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

PUNEET SAHDEV,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

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. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

u/s 171D and 271E passed by the JCIT, Bathinda, wherein as per the section 271D and 271E, the JCIT is categorically empowered for the penalty performance, being the quasi judicial action; that the Ld. PCIT while cancelling the penalty order, passed Manjit Krishan Malhotra v. Pr.CIT under section 271D and 271E, dated 10.02.2014, by the Jt. Commissioner of Income

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

u/s 171D and 271E passed by the JCIT, Bathinda, wherein as per the section 271D and 271E, the JCIT is categorically empowered for the penalty performance, being the quasi judicial action; that the Ld. PCIT while cancelling the penalty order, passed Manjit Krishan Malhotra v. Pr.CIT under section 271D and 271E, dated 10.02.2014, by the Jt. Commissioner of Income

M/S NICE TELECOM,MANSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), MANSA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 153/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

penalty action u/s. 271(1)(c) to cover up any leakage possible. Income is computed as under:- Income declared by the assessee Rs. 27020/- Addition as discussed in para-3 Rs. 80000/- Total income Rs.107020/-’ There is no reference to the material considered; the defects observed in the assessee’s claims, etc. in the relevant discussion in the order