DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

6 no records were being maintained by the assessee in this regard and therefore, the income was offered u/s 69A ‘subject to no explanation’. Since the assessees could not satisfactorily explain the sources of income, the Assessing officer, therefore, invoked the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

6 no records were being maintained by the assessee in this regard and therefore, the income was offered u/s 69A ‘subject to no explanation’. Since the assessees could not satisfactorily explain the sources of income, the Assessing officer, therefore, invoked the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

6 no records were being maintained by the assessee in this regard and therefore, the income was offered u/s 69A ‘subject to no explanation’. Since the assessees could not satisfactorily explain the sources of income, the Assessing officer, therefore, invoked the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

6 no records were being maintained by the assessee in this regard and therefore, the income was offered u/s 69A ‘subject to no explanation’. Since the assessees could not satisfactorily explain the sources of income, the Assessing officer, therefore, invoked the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

6 no records were being maintained by the assessee in this regard and therefore, the income was offered u/s 69A ‘subject to no explanation’. Since the assessees could not satisfactorily explain the sources of income, the Assessing officer, therefore, invoked the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee reiterated that

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)

6. On perusal of the record of hearing before us it was found that the assessee had sought to admit additional ground before us vide its application dated 22.5.2017 as under: Dated: 19.05.2017 The Honorable Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. Sub: Application for filing of Additional Grounds of Appeal In the case of Chetan Jain, B-121, Pushap Vihar

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

11 wherein it was held penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied upon the assessee on incorrect claim for deduction was not justifiable as the same was on account of change of law and therefore, a matter of bona fide mistake..,.. (iii) Shree Krishna Electricals 2009-23 VST249 (SC) Penalty cannot be levied merely because exemption claimed

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

11 wherein it was held penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied upon the assessee on incorrect claim for deduction was not justifiable as the same was on account of change of law and therefore, a matter of bona fide mistake..,.. (iii) Shree Krishna Electricals 2009-23 VST249 (SC) Penalty cannot be levied merely because exemption claimed

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

6. Subsequently, vide a written communication dated 19.5.2017 the assessee raised additional grounds of appeal which read as under: “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case & in law, the penalty proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 274 read with section 271 of the I.T. Act,1961., dated 29.11.2013 are invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts

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

6. Subsequently, vide a written communication dated 19.5.2017 the assessee raised additional grounds of appeal which read as under: “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case & in law, the penalty proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 274 read with section 271 of the I.T. Act,1961., dated 29.11.2013 are invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts

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

6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee being an agriculturist and not well versed with the e-filing portal was initially not aware about the issuance of notice on 18/11/2021 and 05/03/2022. However in response to subsequent two notices dt. 10/03/2022 and 21/03/2022, the reply were duly filed on 12/03/2022. It was accordingly submitted

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 397/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S Happy Steels Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम B-Xxix, 2254, Central Circle-2, Kanganwal Road, Ludhiana P.O. Jugiana, Ludhiana 141120 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaach6019D अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in, as much as he was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs. 3,80,242/- 2. That levy of penalty and upholding the same is bad in law in as much

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

6. Being aggrieved the assessee, carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who sustained the penalty levied by the A.O. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the A.O. before levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act did not obtain the approval from the Additional Commissioner

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

6. In view of the above, considering the peculiar facts, the grievance of the assessee is accepted as genuine and as such the order of the Id. CIT (A) sustaining the penalty is hereby quashed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.’ 10.1 The Indore Bench of the Tribunal, in ITA No. 869/lnd/2018, in the case

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

THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs. 66,38,400/- without specifying the limb of Section 271