DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated was to be under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act as the assessment year 2012-13, falls in the definition of specified previous ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17

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)

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. The assessee has declared undisclosed income, in the return filed- in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act and the CIT(Appeals), having regard to the facts of the case, invoked the currently applicable Explanation 5A Section 271(1) (c) of the Act and upheld the penalty, levied

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

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. The assessee has declared undisclosed income, in the return filed- in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act and the CIT(Appeals), having regard to the facts of the case, invoked the currently applicable Explanation 5A Section 271(1) (c) of the Act and upheld the penalty, levied

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

139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153 of the Act. The assessee has declared undisclosed income, in the return filed- in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act and the CIT(Appeals), having regard to the facts of the case, invoked the currently applicable Explanation 5A Section 271(1) (c) of the Act and upheld the penalty, levied

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

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 on the assessee. The various judicial precedents, as ITA 398/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 8 discussed in the following paras have held that the penalty notice should be clear enough to convey

PALACE INFRATECH PVT LTD,LUDHIANA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect o f the undisclosed income referred to in sub- section (1). (3) The provisions o f sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation- For the purposes o f this section,- (a) "specified date" means

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)

4 , It was submitted that the assessee was not under an obligation to file the IT return as provided u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, due to his below taxable income as the income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs. 34,37,500/- after making addition of this amount. The belief of the assessee that

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

4 to section 271(1)(C), there is no tax which is sought to be evaded by the assessee and thus, there is no basis for levy of penalty in all these case. It was accordingly submitted that penalty so levied and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to be deleted. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

4 to section 271(1)(C), there is no tax which is sought to be evaded by the assessee and thus, there is no basis for levy of penalty in all these case. It was accordingly submitted that penalty so levied and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to be deleted. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

4 to section 271(1)(C), there is no tax which is sought to be evaded by the assessee and thus, there is no basis for levy of penalty in all these case. It was accordingly submitted that penalty so levied and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to be deleted. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

4 to section 271(1)(C), there is no tax which is sought to be evaded by the assessee and thus, there is no basis for levy of penalty in all these case. It was accordingly submitted that penalty so levied and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to be deleted. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

4 to section 271(1)(C), there is no tax which is sought to be evaded by the assessee and thus, there is no basis for levy of penalty in all these case. It was accordingly submitted that penalty so levied and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to be deleted. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

4 to section 271(1)(C), there is no tax which is sought to be evaded by the assessee and thus, there is no basis for levy of penalty in all these case. It was accordingly submitted that penalty so levied and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to be deleted. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied

SH. DIPTI LAL,MORINDA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptash. Dipti Lal, Vs. The D.C.I.T., Goldsmith, Purana Bazar, Investigation Circle 2(1), Morinda. Chandigarh. Pan: - (Appellant) (Respondent)

4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment accepting the returned/surrendered income but at the same time initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the Act, being satisfied that the assessee was deemed to have concealed particulars of his income as per Explanation 5 to the section, since he had failed to file return u/s 139