SMT. VANI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

274 of the Act indicates that the imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but directory. Accordingly we hold that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” 9. As far as to the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case

M/S SEL TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, theappeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.695/Chd/2018 धििागरणवर्ग / Assessment Year :2014-15 बिाम M/S Sel Textiles Limited, The Dcit, 273-74,G.T. Road, Central Circle-Iii, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana Ludhiana स्थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aancs0401M अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent धििागररतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राजस्वकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Ram Mohan, Cit Dr सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 उदघोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg:

disallowances vide order dated 30-03-2016. The Assessing Officer also issued a penalty notice under Clause (a) of Sec. 271 AAB asking the assessee to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed in respect of undisclosed income found/surrendered during search action. A detailed reply was filed vide letter dated 26-09-2016. The Ld. Assessing Officer after

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

disallowed while computing total income of the year, therefore no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee stating that the surrender is not covered u./s 132(4) of the Act as per the provisions of section 271AAA(4)(b) since the impugned year is not the search

SH. MUNISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

disallowed while computing total income of the year, therefore no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee stating that the surrender is not covered u./s 132(4) of the Act as per the provisions of section 271AAA(4)(b) since the impugned year is not the search

HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the disposal of the same.

274 read with section 271(1)(c). On careful examination of the assessment order and the penalty order, we find that the Assessing Officer has recorded a clear and categorical satisfaction that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the disallowance

SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

274 of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-2 Chandigarh has erred in upholding the order of the learned A 0 has in the notice under Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has stated that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income as well

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income

JINDAL PADDING PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE MANNPURA, TEHSIL NALAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER PARWANO, PARWANO

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

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act (Page 15 of Paper Book) and interalia contended that in the said notice dated 23.10.2020 both the limbs of Section 271(1)(c) i.e., ‘Concealed the particulars of his income’ and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income’ have been made applicable. Reliance was placed on following judgements to ITA 100/CHD/2024

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

section 271(l)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against the appellant is vague, illegal and bad in law. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings, hence the order passed u/s 274 r.w.s271

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

section 271(l)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against the appellant is vague, illegal and bad in law. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings, hence the order passed u/s 274 r.w.s271

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

section 271(l)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against the appellant is vague, illegal and bad in law. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings, hence the order passed u/s 274 r.w.s271

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

section 271(l)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings against the appellant is vague, illegal and bad in law. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no valid satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings, hence the order passed u/s 274 r.w.s271