AKM RESORTS,MOHALI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that he has no explanation to offer. 2.5 The ld. AO keeping in view that the assessee has not filed any reply was left with no other option but to decide the issue of penalty on merits on the basis of material available on record. ITA 42/CHD/2024

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)

144 of the Act, wherein the addition of Rs. 34,37,500/- was made in the hands of the assessee and separately penalty proceedings under section 271F were initiated for not furnishing the return of income as required under section 139(1) of the Act, vide notice dt. 25/12/2018. Thereafter, another notice was issued on 14/06/2019 and in absence

MANPREET SINGH BHULLAR,PARWANOO vs. ITO, PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 77,393,/-. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: The appellant is an individual and during the assessment year 2007-08, he was carrying on the business of manufacturing of paper tubes, cartons, wrappers and printing

SMT. RENU JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO-WARD-3(3), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Us:

u/s 271(l)(b) without considering the provisions of s. 273B of the Act and on consideration of provisions of s. 273B, the impugned penalty was not imposable on the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same. 2. Briefly stated, assessment

SH. AASHISH ARORA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-3(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

u/s 144 whereby aforesaid additions made by the A.O. have been challenged. 4. The appellant craves the right to add, alter, amend any ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. From the aforesaid ground it would be clear that the only grievance of the Assessee relates to the sustenance of penalty levied

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)

Section 274 was issued to the assessee. In response to said notice also, there was no compliance. Thereafter, another notice was issued on 11.08.2022 which also remained un-complied with. Thereafter, the AO proceeded in the matter and held the assessee to be in default and held that it is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, AMBALA , AMBALA CANTT vs. SURINDER KUMAR VERMA , AMBALA

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.447/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito Ward-4 Shri Surinder Kumar Verma Aaykar Bhawan, B.C. Bazar बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 38, Kabir Nagar Ambala Cantt., Haryana - 133001 Ambala Cantt., Haryana - 133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acspv-3298-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 24-02-2024 Deleting Penalty Of Rs.70,53,886/- As Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 21-09-2015. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. The Ld. Sr. Dr Pleaded For Restoration Of Penalty As Levied By Ld. Ao. Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 1

144 on 16-03- 2015 wherein Ld. AO made addition of unexplained income u/s 68 / 69 for Rs.226.87 Lacs. Consequently, penalty was initiated for concealment of income in the assessment order and penalty show cause-notices were issued to the assessee u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 during the course of penalty proceedings. The assessee remained non- compliant and accordingly

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. 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

SATWINDER KAUR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act was finalized by the AO on 28.11.2019 & for non- compliance of statutory notices, a notice u/s. 271(1)(b) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the appellant on 28.11.2019 to show cause why an order imposing a penalty

SMT. BIMLA DEVI,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing. 2. The Ld. Ar Inviting Attention To The Impugned Order Submitted That The Assessee'S Appeal Has Been Incorrectly

section 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 and accordingly dismissed the appeal inspite of the fact that appellant never opted for Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme against the penalty of Rs.768380/- levied vide order dated 13.06.2019 passed u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee craves permission to file/raise/amend

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

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

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

144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the cash deposits/FDRs of Rs. 57,00,000/- remain unexplained and are added to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have initiated for concealment of income and penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) have been initiated for non- compliance of notice u/s

SH. HEM RAJ RAHI,DHARAMPUR vs. ITO, , SUNDERNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 2. The common issue raised by the assessee in both these appeals vide ground no. 2 relates to the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal without considering the explanation of the assessee. The said ground read

SH. HEM RAJ RAHI,DHARAMPUR vs. ITO, , SUNDERNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 2. The common issue raised by the assessee in both these appeals vide ground no. 2 relates to the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal without considering the explanation of the assessee. The said ground read

BALWANT SINGH DHINDSA, ADV. SO KARTAR SINGH, #185 STREET NO. 11, PUNIA COLONY, SANGRUR, PUNJAB,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD SANGRUR, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

u/s\n148 of the Act. It is hereby submitted that the said amount has been\nreceived by the assessee as lease income from the agriculture land owned\nby him. In addition to this, it is pertinent to mention that the assessee had\ndeclared the said amount of Rs.4,50,000/- in his return of income along\nwith the cash flow

M/S OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY,DALHOUSIE vs. ITO, BANIKHET

In the result this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 772/Chd/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(b) without appreciating written submissions made. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed action of ITO in adopting status of assessee firm as AOP without ITA Nos. 772-c-12, 485-c-17 & 496-c-18- M/s Oak Valley Residency, Chamba 3 appreciating written submissions made in this regard. 6. That the learned