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)

section 133(6) the party denied to had any transaction or job work done for the assessee. 8 Sonu Rs.49,775/- Cash Letter issued u/s 133(6) received unserved Engineering Works with the remarks of the post man that "no such person existing at the given address." Above facts were confronted to the assesseee for his comments and explanation

M/S MAHARAJA LIGHT & TENT SERVICES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

6. Careful reading of section 271AAB of the Act, the words used are 'AO may direct' and 'the assessee shall pay by way of penalty'. Similar words are used section 158BFA(2) of the Act. The word may direct indicates the discretion to the AO. Further, sub section (3) of section 271AAB of the Act, fortifies this view

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

6. Careful reading of section 271AAB of the Act, the words used are 'AO may direct' and 'the assessee shall pay by way of penalty'. Similar words are used section 158BFA(2) of the Act. The word may direct indicates the discretion to the AO. Further, sub section (3) of section 271AAB of the Act, fortifies this view

SMT. VANI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

6. Careful reading of section 271AAB of the Act, the words used are 'AO may direct' and 'the assessee shall pay by way of penalty'. Similar words are used section 158BFA(2) of the Act. The word may direct indicates the discretion to the AO. Further, sub section (3) of section 271AAB of the Act, fortifies this view

M/S BRAHMA STEYR TRACTORS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-1(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.200/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7 A.Y. 2014-15 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and stated that it was abundantly clear that the liability of these two parties had ceased to exist and the assessee having not written off the liability and brought the same

MANPREET SINGH BHULLAR,PARWANOO vs. ITO, PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

133 DTR 223 (Kam.)(HC), it has been held that -Quantum appeal is admitted by High Court on substantial question of law hence addition itself becomes debatable, hence the levy of penalty was held to be not justified. [S. 54, 54F, 260A] The Assessee claimed deduction under section 54 against sale of commercial building which was denied

VASDEV,SANGRUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133(6), reasons were recorded by the Assessing officer for escapement of income and notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee on 29/03/2019. Thereafter, in response to the notice under section 148, no return of income was filed by the assessee. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) on 05/07/2019 wherein the assessee was asked

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

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

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AR has also submitted that the addition in the partner's capita! account of Rs. 50 lacs should be considered as explained under the unaccounted sales transactions of Rs. 42.80 lacs in the impounded documents and other discrepancies of Rs. 7.2 lacs found during the course

DINESH VERMA,MANALI, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ITO, ITO WARD KULLU

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

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

u/s 270A of the Act after following due procedure laid down and to take consequential action. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had examined the matter and therefore the revision under section 263 was invalid. It was contended that

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

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

133(6) of the IT. Act, 1961 was called for from Punjab National Bank and placed on record. 2.5 Further, notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18-07-2019 alongwith questionnaire calling for some information were issued. The assessee was required

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

133(6) and no communication received from the other investor and finally by placing the reliance upon following cases :- (i) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Nova Promoters & finlease (P) Limited. 342 ITR 169 (Del) In this case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under: ITA Nos. 600,601 & 602/CHD/2024

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

133(6) and no communication received from the other investor and finally by placing the reliance upon following cases :- (i) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Nova Promoters & finlease (P) Limited. 342 ITR 169 (Del) In this case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under: ITA Nos. 600,601 & 602/CHD/2024

KANGRA VALLEY GARDEN HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHARAMSHALA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, DHARAMSHALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal.

133(6) and no communication received from the other investor and finally by placing the reliance upon following cases :- (i) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Nova Promoters & finlease (P) Limited. 342 ITR 169 (Del) In this case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under: ITA Nos. 600,601 & 602/CHD/2024

AMARJEET BEETON HUF,DHURI vs. ACIT, C-4, LUDHIANA

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumaramarjeet Beeton(Huf) Vs. The Asstt. Ci T Prop. M/S Shiva Udyog, Circle-4 House No. 210, Ward No. 10-B Ludhiana Shivpuri Mohalla, Dhuri

133(6) from Smt Anita Sharma which according to the AO was not replied The assessee surrendered Rs. 200000/- as income to avoid litigation with the department. The Ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 200000/- on account of this surrender and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) and subsequently levied penalty of Rs.66

M/S MRS. BECTOR FOOD SPECIALITIES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

133/- u/s 36(1)(iii) on amount Invested in the purchase of property 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has ignored the fact that no penalty was leviable as all the facts stood disclosed and there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. That the Learned CIT(A) has ignored the fact that the statutory notice issued u/s

INCOME TAX OFFIER, WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA vs. BALPREET SINGH, LUDHIANA

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

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

u/s 69A as the assessee had failed to furnish any explanation and prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of credits of Rs.33,07,37,215/- in bank accounts during the assessment proceedings. 5) That, reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income

TARA HEALTH FOODS LTD.,MALERKOTLA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, ITA No.1036/CHD/2013 is partly allowed, whereas ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1036/Chd/2013 & Ita 754/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Tara Health Foods Ltd., Vs The Dcit, Village Jitwal Kalan, Central Circle-1, Tehsil – Malerkotla. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacct3940R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Ms.Deepali Aggarwal,Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

Section 153A of the Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal i.e. ITA No.1036/CHD/2013. The assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, however, its grievance revolves around three fold of issues. In the first ground of appeal, assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the determination of income at Rs.31,77,60,505/- as against