M/S APEEJAY EDUCATION SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

271(1)(b). 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)fell into grave error by confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. The Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’), while imposing penalty in question, vide order dated 15.10.2019, observed as follows : "Vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 30.08.2019 the assessee was asked to submit some information/documents required

BALWINDER SINGH BAJWA,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SUNAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

cash u/s 69A of the IT. Act. 6.1 It was submitted that there is not much of transaction in the bank account of the assessee either before or after the sale transaction of agricultural land. The assessee is not having any other source of income so as to generate undisclosed income of Rs 34,37,500/-. The assessee was doing

BALWINDER SINGH,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SUNAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

cash deposited. Therefore, the AO is justified in levy of the penalty amounting to Rs.5000/- u/s 271F of the Act. The appeal of the appellant is dismissed." 6.5. It was submitted that the explanation offered by the appellant assessee has been ignored by the Ld. CIT(A) and confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271F. In para

SMT. JAGDEEP KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048105767(1) Dt. 20/12/2022 Which Was Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Said First Appeal Was Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A). Therefore Assessee Is Before Us. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. 4. In Form No. 36 The Assessee Interalia Has Take Up Following Grounds Of Appeal Against The Impugned Order Which Are Reproduced Below:

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income are being initiated separately. Penalty proceedings u/s 271F for non filing of Income Tax Return are being initiated separately. Based upon above, the total income of the assessee is computed as under:- Addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Rs. 7,35,000/- Assessed

BALWANT SINGH DHINDSA, ADV. SO KARTAR SINGH, #185 STREET NO. 11, PUNIA COLONY, SANGRUR, PUNJAB,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD SANGRUR, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

u/s\n148 of the Act. It is hereby submitted that the said amount has been\nreceived by the assessee as lease income from the agriculture land owned\nby him. In addition to this, it is pertinent to mention that the assessee had\ndeclared the said amount of Rs.4,50,000/- in his return of income along\nwith the cash flow

JAGROOP SINGH,BARNALA vs. ITO, W-1, BARNALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is treated as dismissed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105946628(1) Dt. 08/01/2024 Passed By The Cit(A) Under Section 250(6) Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant A.Y. Is 2012-13 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2011 To 31/03/2012. 2. Factual Matrix

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) have been initiated for non- compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2.7 Thus the Ld. AO computed total income of assessee at Rs. 57,28,420/- (returned income Rs. 28,420/- + Rs. 57,00,000/-). 4 2.8 That the aforesaid assessment order of Ld. AO bears No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20

SUKHMINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the Ld

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

deposit in bank account amounting to Rs 20,86,100/-without considering the explainable sources of cash with the assessee. 11. That the Ld CIT(A) has wrongly upheld initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

u/s 133A of the IT Act to find out the true facts of the case when there was no compliance and cooperation on the part of the assessee to prove its primary onus. And on the basis of survey only true facts of the case were ascertained which helped in ascertaining the factual reality. The assessing office collected information u/s

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

u/s 133A of the IT Act to find out the true facts of the case when there was no compliance and cooperation on the part of the assessee to prove its primary onus. And on the basis of survey only true facts of the case were ascertained which helped in ascertaining the factual reality. The assessing office collected information u/s

SHRI NARINDER SINGH,ROPAR vs. ITO, W-2(2), ROPAR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment particulars of income. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant vide letter dated 11.06.2019 submitted that no transactions amounting to Rs.1,85,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/- had been made and reflecting in bank statement and AO has not considered the documentary evidence in respect of cash deposit

SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.06.2009 against whom appeal has been dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) by way of the impugned order). 2. It has been brought to our notice that assessee Shri Dinesh Sethi has died on 14.02.2024. Death Certificate of the assessee has been annexed by the ld. counsel for the assessee

SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 25.06.2009 against whom appeal has been dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) by way of the impugned order). 2. It has been brought to our notice that assessee Shri Dinesh Sethi has died on 14.02.2024. Death Certificate of the assessee has been annexed by the ld. counsel for the assessee

PLATINUM SALES,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1156/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Platinum Sales, The Ito, Scf-10, Sector 9-D, बनाम Ward 2(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aanfp7207P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Phsyical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate & Sh. Atul Mandhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee had submitted a detailed response along with the necessary annexures as documentary evidence, which clearly states that the said cash deposit of Rs.1,12,65,000/- was recorded in the Books of Accounts of the Assessee's Firm and had duly been offered for taxation. 4. That

GURMELO DEVI,JAGADHARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, YUMNANAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

cash deposit in a bank account could not be tr eated a s taxable income u/s 69 of the Act. 3. That A.O. acting under information from inves tigation wing no independent application of m ind not amount to formation of belief. Is bad-i n-law. 4. That Ld. ITO has wrongly initiated penalty pro ceedings u/s 271

ROHIT JAIN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. ITO, WARD- 1, MANDI GOBINDGARH, PUNJAB

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’ pertaining to 2013-14 assessment year. 2. As requested, first we take the assessee's appeal in ITA 451/CHD/2025. 3. There is a delay in filing the appeal remains of 1350 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein

ROHIT JAIN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. JAO, ITO WARD - 1, SIRHIND, PUNJAB

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’ pertaining to 2013-14 assessment year. 2. As requested, first we take the assessee's appeal in ITA 451/CHD/2025. 3. There is a delay in filing the appeal remains of 1350 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein

SURESH,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, PANCHKULA

In the result both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect to the amount received from sale of agriculture land on power of attorney which was duly registered in Tehsil ignoring the fact that the cash of Rs. 10,00,000 was deposited on the same date of execution of power of attorney and same belongs to seven family members

SURESH,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, PANCHKULA

In the result both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect to the amount received from sale of agriculture land on power of attorney which was duly registered in Tehsil ignoring the fact that the cash of Rs. 10,00,000 was deposited on the same date of execution of power of attorney and same belongs to seven family members

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is premature in nature. ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 14 5.5 Ground of Appeal No. 7 is consequential in nature. 5.6 Ground of Appeal No. 8 has not been argued by the AR during the course of appellate proceedings. 6. In the result