DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under:- “10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee has deposited various amounts in cash

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under:- “10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee has deposited various amounts in cash

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under:- “10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee has deposited various amounts in cash

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under:- “10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee has deposited various amounts in cash

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, observing as under:- “10. Based on above discussion the following conclusions may be drawn A. The assessee has deposited various amounts in cash

SHER SINGH,PALAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAMPUR

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

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

deposits were out of cash sales and receipts from debtor. Assessee has again failed to provide debtors PAN. Therefore proposed addition of Rs. 44,70,000 to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of income tax act, 1961 as unexplained money and taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE i.e taxed @ 60% as discussed in draft assessment order

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

SSMT. CHARU AGGARWAL,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB are being initiated on this undisclosed income. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)and furnished the written submissions which are incorporated in para 3 of the impugned order and read as under: "“Sub: Written Submission in the case of M/s. Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, House No. 123C, Model Town, Patiala

KALANEEDHI JEWELLERS LLP,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB are being initiated on this undisclosed income. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)and furnished the written submissions which are incorporated in para 3 of the impugned order and read as under: "“Sub: Written Submission in the case of M/s. Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, House No. 123C, Model Town, Patiala

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

SH. KAMALDEEP SINGH VIRK,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(2), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

cash deposit in the bank account. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, are being initiated

GURDISH KAUR KHULAR,JALANDHAR vs. ACIT( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

cash deposit in the bank account of assessee and also initiated penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved

SH. BALWAN SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, The Ld. counsel for assessee pointed out that the penalty had been levied on the addition made on account of cash deposits

JASBIR SINGH,PATIALA vs. ITO, W-2, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

deposits. On account of this fact, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty order holding that the assessee has failed to furnish plausible explanation for the unexplained cash

SHRI RAM SINGH(DEMISED) L/H SHRI HARVINDER SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO-WARD-6(5), MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav(Assessment Year: 2009-10

penalty proceedings u/s 5 A.Y.2009-10 271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income are initiated separately.” 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) challenging the order passed by the AO both on legality as well on merits of the case. The Ld.CIT(A), however, rejected the grounds