DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

addition into the income of the assessee or the assessee has already paid taxes on such income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars of income have been furnished, then, as per Explanation 4, there will be no tax sought to be evaded and thereby no penalty will be leviable u/s 271

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

addition into the income of the assessee or the assessee has already paid taxes on such income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars of income have been furnished, then, as per Explanation 4, there will be no tax sought to be evaded and thereby no penalty will be leviable u/s 271

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

addition into the income of the assessee or the assessee has already paid taxes on such income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars of income have been furnished, then, as per Explanation 4, there will be no tax sought to be evaded and thereby no penalty will be leviable u/s 271

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

addition into the income of the assessee or the assessee has already paid taxes on such income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars of income have been furnished, then, as per Explanation 4, there will be no tax sought to be evaded and thereby no penalty will be leviable u/s 271

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

addition into the income of the assessee or the assessee has already paid taxes on such income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars of income have been furnished, then, as per Explanation 4, there will be no tax sought to be evaded and thereby no penalty will be leviable u/s 271

DCIT, PARWANOO vs. M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS, SOLAN

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

income u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated w.r.t. all the above referred restriction in deduction claimed and disallowances made. The issues on which penalty levied is as under:- Amount of addition

HYCRON ELECTRONICS vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

income u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated w.r.t. all the above referred restriction in deduction claimed and disallowances made. The issues on which penalty levied is as under:- Amount of addition

SH. CHETAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptash.Chetan Jain, Vs. The D.C.I.T., B-121, Pushap Vihar, Central Circle-Iii, Canal Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aaypj0618H (Appellant) (Respondent)

additional income declared after search represented concealed income and hence tantamounted to incriminating material for attracting Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the same the assessee has come up in appeal before us raising the following effective ground: “1. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AR has also submitted that the addition in the partner's capita! account of Rs. 50 lacs should be considered as explained under the unaccounted sales transactions of Rs. 42.80 lacs in the impounded documents and other discrepancies of Rs. 7.2 lacs found during the course

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:

u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act,1961. Assessment was framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer computing the total income at Rs.33,73,75,950/- after making various additions / disallowances vide order dated 30-03-2016. The Assessing Officer also issued a penalty notice under Clause (a) of Sec. 271

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

271(l)(c) are attracted. During the appellate proceedings, the main argument of the AR was that no incriminating document was found and the income returned in response to notice u/s!53A has been accepted. However, perusal of the assessment order shows that the additional income has been declared by the assessee after the search. The extra income offered/assessed u/s

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

271(l)(c) are attracted. During the appellate proceedings, the main argument of the AR was that no incriminating document was found and the income returned in response to notice u/s!53A has been accepted. However, perusal of the assessment order shows that the additional income has been declared by the assessee after the search. The extra income offered/assessed u/s

M/S MAHARAJA LIGHT & TENT SERVICES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

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

additional amount with a view to avoid protracted litigation cannot and does not amount to discovery of undisclosed income for the purposes of levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. The Legislature has all along been conscious in providing for levy of penalty only in respect of “undisclosed income”. We find that in all penal provisions such as Explanation

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

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

additional amount with a view to avoid protracted litigation cannot and does not amount to discovery of undisclosed income for the purposes of levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. The Legislature has all along been conscious in providing for levy of penalty only in respect of “undisclosed income”. We find that in all penal provisions such as Explanation

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

additional amount with a view to avoid protracted litigation cannot and does not amount to discovery of undisclosed income for the purposes of levy penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. The Legislature has all along been conscious in providing for levy of penalty only in respect of “undisclosed income”. We find that in all penal provisions such as Explanation

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) has been levied on the addition of Rs. 81,072/- made under the head 'Income

SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Us Challenging The Levy Of Penalty Both On Legal Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case :

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. The Ld. counsel for assessee thereafter pointed out that the matter was carried in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who noted that similar addition

M/S HAPPY STEEL PRIVATE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

additional income in the statement recorded under section 132(4) Itself is not sufficient to levy the penalty under section 271AAB of the Act until and unless the income sodisclosed by the assessee falls in the definition of undisclosed income defined in the explanation to section 271AAB(1) of the Act. Therefore, the question whether the income disclosed