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)

142(1), show cause notices u/s. 271 read with section 271(1)(b) of the act vide notices dated 15.11.2019,14.06.2021,15.07.2021 and 03.09.2021 were issued to show cause as to why penalty

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)

Section 273B of the Act, we have no hesitation in deleting the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s 271F of the Act since "reasonable cause" is clearly demonstrated by the assessee. Therefore the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(b) and u/s 271F are deleted. 6.7. Reliance was also placed in the case of CIT Vs N. Khan & Bros

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

SH. JAGMOHAN SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penalty of Rs. 13,13,910/- u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declared total income of Rs. 6,24,782/- on 31/03/2010. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

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)

u/s 144 r/w 147 of the Act. Separately, while passing the assessment order, the AO also recorded his satisfaction that the assessee has willfully concealed particulars of his income and therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were separately initiated and notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dt. 28/12/2019 was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter

AJMAIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: JUSTICE (RETD) C.V. BHADANG (President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

142(1) alongwith questionnaire dated 29.08.2021 and 07.09.2021 were issued to the assessee. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice dated 03.03.2022 was also issued to the assessee. In response to all these notices, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. Thereafter, given the non-compliance from the assessee, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) were initiated and notice

PAWAN GARG,PANCHKULA vs. ITO WARD 5((5) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1218/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Garg, The Ito, House No. 766, Sector 16, Vs Ward 5(5), Panchkula. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abmpg4243N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

142(1) and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing the income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income have been initiated separately. Issue notice of demand.” 4. The appeal to the CIT (Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee while impugning the orders of Revenue Authorities submitted that

SATWINDER KAUR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings, had observed that during the Assessment proceedings, for the A.Y. 2012-13, notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act were issued to the appellant on 26.06.2019, 12.11.2019 and 20.11.2019. However, the appellant had failed to comply with the said statutory notices issued. Thereafter, based on the material available on record, assessment u/s 144 r.w.s

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

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax\nAct, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty\nproceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges\nout from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax\nAct, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty\nproceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act.\n\n3. First, we take the quantum

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

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2, KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

142(1) was issued calling for requisite informations and that the same was duly served upon the assessee. 7. The assessee filed ITR on 30/11/2018 declaring income of Rs. 50,000/- plus agriculture income of Rs. 2,50,000/- in response to notice under section 148. 8. Thereafter, notices under section 143(2) was issued on 02/12/2018 for the requisite

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2 KAITHAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, AMBALA ROAD KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

142(1) was issued calling for requisite informations and that the same was duly served upon the assessee. 7. The assessee filed ITR on 30/11/2018 declaring income of Rs. 50,000/- plus agriculture income of Rs. 2,50,000/- in response to notice under section 148. 8. Thereafter, notices under section 143(2) was issued on 02/12/2018 for the requisite

SURESH,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, PANCHKULA

In the result both the above appeals are allowed

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

u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect to the amount received from sale of agriculture land on power of attorney which was duly registered in Tehsil ignoring the fact that the cash of Rs. 10,00,000 was deposited on the same date of execution of power of attorney and same belongs to seven family members