DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the 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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that he had no records or evidence relating to the source of income so earned. Therefore, the Assessing officer levied the 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

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)

5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing i.e. 24.4.2018. Further it was noticed that on earlier occasions also i.e. 22.11.2017 and 19.2.2018 the case had been adjourned on the request of the assessee’s counsel through adjournment applications filed. Further, it was pointed out to us that the issue in the present case

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT act on disallowance of Rs 5,55,241/- being disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D on the dividend income of Rs 10,50,047/-. it may kindly be observed that the appellant submitted all particulars showing the manner in which claim of various expenses was admissible. Thereafter, the question as to whether

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT act on disallowance of Rs 5,55,241/- being disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D on the dividend income of Rs 10,50,047/-. it may kindly be observed that the appellant submitted all particulars showing the manner in which claim of various expenses was admissible. Thereafter, the question as to whether

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

10. We shall first deal with the additional grounds raised since they challenge the jurisdiction to pass the penalty order. 11. In the context of the additional grounds raised, the Ld. counsel for assessee contended that the penalty notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 29.11.2013 was invalid and bad since

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

10. We shall first deal with the additional grounds raised since they challenge the jurisdiction to pass the penalty order. 11. In the context of the additional grounds raised, the Ld. counsel for assessee contended that the penalty notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 29.11.2013 was invalid and bad since

JARNAIL SINGH GILL,JAGRAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON

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

Bench: The Tribunal & The Matter Was Remanded Back To Ao For Fresh Adjudication. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed

10,000/- as against Rs. 50,000/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal of the assessee are-thus partly allowed.” 8. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of the Coordinate Jaipur Benches in case of Sandeep Verma Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1167/JP/2019 dt. 09/01/2020 wherein the relevant findings read as under: “5. We have

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

Section 271AAB (1), or clause (a) or (b) of 271 AAB (1 A) of the Act, penalty is leviable on the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the notice initiating penalty u/s 271 AAB of the Act is vague and the assessee was not made aware of the actual charge on which the penalty proceedings will be initiated

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

5. Facts of the case as appearing in the penalty order dt. 30/03/2018 in brief are that the assessment in this case was completed vide order dt. 31/03/2014 at an income of Rs. 25,71,060/- against the returned income of Rs. 20,33,820/- by making the following addition: 1. Addition of Rs. 81,072/- on account of less

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)

Section 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

M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD.,KHARAR vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

section 271 AAA, the penalty @ 10% on undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/- should have been imposed. It was further submitted that only 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, amounting to Rs. 12,51,641/-could be imposed as penalty. The Ld. CIT (A) vide order, dated 21.09. 2020, accordingly, restricted the penalty

ACIT,CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

section 271 AAA, the penalty @ 10% on undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/- should have been imposed. It was further submitted that only 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, amounting to Rs. 12,51,641/-could be imposed as penalty. The Ld. CIT (A) vide order, dated 21.09. 2020, accordingly, restricted the penalty

ACIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

section 271 AAA, the penalty @ 10% on undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/- should have been imposed. It was further submitted that only 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, amounting to Rs. 12,51,641/-could be imposed as penalty. The Ld. CIT (A) vide order, dated 21.09. 2020, accordingly, restricted the penalty

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

271(1)(c), Section 271AAA & Section 271AAB, the Legislature has restricted the scope of penal provision only to “undisclosed income” and not assessed total income. Moreover the term/expression “undisclosed income” has been defined by the Legislature in all such penal provisions in a specific and restricted manner and not in an inclusive manner. For that reason the definition of undisclosed