ANJALI SAINI,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO-WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

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

natural justice and the order passed by the Ld. AO be quashed. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty u/s 271

INDER PAL SINGH LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED SATNAM SINGH 171789, STREET NO.8, GURU TEG BAHADUR JAGRAON,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JAGRAON , PUNJAB

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)

u/s 271 DA to the tune of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- on account of alleged violation of section 269ST. 2. That no proper or reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the appellant to represent the case since no notice was received on the email of assessee or on the email of his counsel or through physical mode. That

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, AMBALA , AMBALA CANTT vs. SURINDER KUMAR VERMA , AMBALA

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.447/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito Ward-4 Shri Surinder Kumar Verma Aaykar Bhawan, B.C. Bazar बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 38, Kabir Nagar Ambala Cantt., Haryana - 133001 Ambala Cantt., Haryana - 133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acspv-3298-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 24-02-2024 Deleting Penalty Of Rs.70,53,886/- As Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 21-09-2015. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Pleaded For Restoration Of Penalty As Levied By Ld. Ao. Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 1

natural justice would be offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. This decision was followed 3 extensively in catena of judicial pronouncements rendered by various Hon'ble High Courts as well as different benches of Tribunal. Finally, the impugned penalty was held to be non sustainable on legal grounds against which

ASPEE SONS,SOLAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO, PARWANOO

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) and then confirmed by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same. 3. Briefly the facts

AL RASHEED CHARITABLE SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. JCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

penalty\norder passed by the Ld. AO u/s 271(])(c) and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be\nquashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of\nbeing heard to the appellant.\n5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the\ngrounds of appeal on or before the disposal

GURCHARAN SINGH ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, for statistical purposes, all the above appeals are treated as allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) & 271 (1)(c) for all the above said years. 2. That the said appeals were prepared and filed by me and I had uploaded the data at the Income Tax portal of the assessee, giving my email.id. 3. That the Police had registered FIR, dated 21.02.2023 against me and some other persons and in consequence

GURCHARAN SINGH ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, for statistical purposes, all the above appeals are treated as allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) & 271 (1)(c) for all the above said years. 2. That the said appeals were prepared and filed by me and I had uploaded the data at the Income Tax portal of the assessee, giving my email.id. 3. That the Police had registered FIR, dated 21.02.2023 against me and some other persons and in consequence

GURCHARAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1) LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, for statistical purposes, all the above appeals are treated as allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) & 271 (1)(c) for all the above said years. 2. That the said appeals were prepared and filed by me and I had uploaded the data at the Income Tax portal of the assessee, giving my email.id. 3. That the Police had registered FIR, dated 21.02.2023 against me and some other persons and in consequence

GURCHARAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1) LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, for statistical purposes, all the above appeals are treated as allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) & 271 (1)(c) for all the above said years. 2. That the said appeals were prepared and filed by me and I had uploaded the data at the Income Tax portal of the assessee, giving my email.id. 3. That the Police had registered FIR, dated 21.02.2023 against me and some other persons and in consequence

GURCHARAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, for statistical purposes, all the above appeals are treated as allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) & 271 (1)(c) for all the above said years. 2. That the said appeals were prepared and filed by me and I had uploaded the data at the Income Tax portal of the assessee, giving my email.id. 3. That the Police had registered FIR, dated 21.02.2023 against me and some other persons and in consequence

GURCHARAN SINGH ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

In the result, for statistical purposes, all the above appeals are treated as allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) & 271 (1)(c) for all the above said years. 2. That the said appeals were prepared and filed by me and I had uploaded the data at the Income Tax portal of the assessee, giving my email.id. 3. That the Police had registered FIR, dated 21.02.2023 against me and some other persons and in consequence

GURCHARAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1) LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, for statistical purposes, all the above appeals are treated as allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) & 271 (1)(c) for all the above said years. 2. That the said appeals were prepared and filed by me and I had uploaded the data at the Income Tax portal of the assessee, giving my email.id. 3. That the Police had registered FIR, dated 21.02.2023 against me and some other persons and in consequence

GURCHARAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1) LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, for statistical purposes, all the above appeals are treated as allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) & 271 (1)(c) for all the above said years. 2. That the said appeals were prepared and filed by me and I had uploaded the data at the Income Tax portal of the assessee, giving my email.id. 3. That the Police had registered FIR, dated 21.02.2023 against me and some other persons and in consequence

GURCHARAN SINGH ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1) LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, for statistical purposes, all the above appeals are treated as allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) & 271 (1)(c) for all the above said years. 2. That the said appeals were prepared and filed by me and I had uploaded the data at the Income Tax portal of the assessee, giving my email.id. 3. That the Police had registered FIR, dated 21.02.2023 against me and some other persons and in consequence

GURCHARAN SINGH ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1) LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, for statistical purposes, all the above appeals are treated as allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) & 271 (1)(c) for all the above said years. 2. That the said appeals were prepared and filed by me and I had uploaded the data at the Income Tax portal of the assessee, giving my email.id. 3. That the Police had registered FIR, dated 21.02.2023 against me and some other persons and in consequence

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

SMT. HARINDER KAUR,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD-6(5), MOHALI

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld Cit(A) & Secondly, The Ld Cit(A) Has Not Issued Any Show-Cause Before Holding That The Appeals Are Barred By Limitation

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of limitation and without the deciding the appeals on merits of the case. 3. In this regard, the Id. AR for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned orders so passed by the Id. CIT(A) and submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals

SMT. HARINDER KAUR,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD-6(5), MOHALI

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld Cit(A) & Secondly, The Ld Cit(A) Has Not Issued Any Show-Cause Before Holding That The Appeals Are Barred By Limitation

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of limitation and without the deciding the appeals on merits of the case. 3. In this regard, the Id. AR for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned orders so passed by the Id. CIT(A) and submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals