THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

condone the delay in the present appeal also. 8. As observed earlier, this appeal arises out of a penalty proceedings

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

condone the delay in the present appeal also. 8. As observed earlier, this appeal arises out of a penalty proceedings

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

condone the delay in the present appeal also. 8. As observed earlier, this appeal arises out of a penalty proceedings

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA,ITO WARD 6(3), LUDHIANA,CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

condoned and the matter be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.10 It was further submitted that there is a delay in other three appeals as well which have been filed by the assessee against the sustenance of the penalty

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

condoned and the matter be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.10 It was further submitted that there is a delay in other three appeals as well which have been filed by the assessee against the sustenance of the penalty

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD6(3), LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A,O, ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

condoned and the matter be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.10 It was further submitted that there is a delay in other three appeals as well which have been filed by the assessee against the sustenance of the penalty

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

condoned and the matter be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.10 It was further submitted that there is a delay in other three appeals as well which have been filed by the assessee against the sustenance of the penalty

JYOTI SHARMA,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay had happened while filing the appeal against the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(d) of the Act and in those matters, similar reasons were submitted seeking condonation

JATINDER NATH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), LUDHIANA, RISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

penalty appeal is concerned, we find that there is a delay of 206 days in filing the appeal. By following our finding in the quantum appeal, we condone

JATINDER NATH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

penalty appeal is concerned, we find that there is a delay of 206 days in filing the appeal. By following our finding in the quantum appeal, we condone

DAVINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), MOHALI, MOHALI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

penalty in the shape of tax liability on this addition is far disproportionate to the negligence even if committed by the assessee by making his appeal time barred by 62 days. Therefore, we condone the delay

CH LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

penalty notices that we contacted our counsel and found that the appeal has not been filed. 3. That as submitted in above Paras, the delay was not intentional and we have not gained any benefit in late filing of appeal and we are keenly interested to pursue the appeal filed on merits. Resultantly, it is humbly submitted that the delay

CH LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

penalty notices that we contacted our counsel and found that the appeal has not been filed. 3. That as submitted in above Paras, the delay was not intentional and we have not gained any benefit in late filing of appeal and we are keenly interested to pursue the appeal filed on merits. Resultantly, it is humbly submitted that the delay

CH LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,YAMUNA NAGAR, HARYANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

penalty notices that we contacted our counsel and found that the appeal has not been filed. 3. That as submitted in above Paras, the delay was not intentional and we have not gained any benefit in late filing of appeal and we are keenly interested to pursue the appeal filed on merits. Resultantly, it is humbly submitted that the delay

SMT. SHASHI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

delay is accordingly, condoned. 11. Moreover,in view of the above uncontroverted facts, that the notices for hearing in the assessment proceedings and the assessment order was sent at the wrong address of the assessee and that the notices issued for initiating penalty

SMT. SHASHI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-VII(2), LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

delay is accordingly, condoned. 11. Moreover,in view of the above uncontroverted facts, that the notices for hearing in the assessment proceedings and the assessment order was sent at the wrong address of the assessee and that the notices issued for initiating penalty

PUNJAB STATE BUS STAND MANAGEMENT CO. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh.

condonation of delay for an extension of time to file this appeal before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. 4. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has passed an order for sustaining the penalty

SHIMLA MEDICOS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L Negi

condones the delay in filing the appeals. 3. The Ld. counsel further submitted that there is a delay of 1189 days in filing the appeal against quantum order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and there is a delay of 307 days in filing the appeal against the order confirming penalty

M/S SHIMLA MEDICOS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L Negi

condones the delay in filing the appeals. 3. The Ld. counsel further submitted that there is a delay of 1189 days in filing the appeal against quantum order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and there is a delay of 307 days in filing the appeal against the order confirming penalty