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

u/s 271AAB of the Act. The Legislature has all along been conscious in providing for levy of penalty only in respect of “undisclosed income”. We find that in all penal provisions such as Explanation 5A of Section 271

M/S SEL TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, theappeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.695/Chd/2018 धििागरणवर्ग / Assessment Year :2014-15 बिाम M/S Sel Textiles Limited, The Dcit, 273-74,G.T. Road, Central Circle-Iii, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana Ludhiana स्थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aancs0401M अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent धििागररतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राजस्वकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Ram Mohan, Cit Dr सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 उदघोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg:

271 AAB asking the assessee to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed in respect of undisclosed income found/surrendered during search action. A detailed reply was filed vide letter dated 26-09-2016. The Ld. Assessing Officer after going through the reply passed an ITA No. 695/Chd/2018- M/s SEL Textiles ltd., Ludhiana 3 order u/s

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

u/s 271(l)© fail, there being no tax sought to be evaded, penalty there under cannot he levied either, as the said provision is rendered unworkable. The computation of penalty with respect to the tax at Rs. 51,54,120/- is therefore contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the penalty imposed

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(l)(c). The AR repeated the argument that the appellate has duly fulfilled all the conditions as prescribed u/s 271AAB by admitting the undisclosed income, substantiating the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived and paid the tax together with interest in respect of undisclosed income on the specified date. The AR contended that on the above facts

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

penalty (30% of the undisclosed income. Against this charge the assessee should have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. From going through the above three notices issued to the assessee on 22.03.2016, 03.06.2016 and 16.09.2016, we find that there is no mention about various conditions provided u/s 271

SH. ASHOK JINDAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 2 71AAA for grant of immunity from penalty. The issue therefore is whether admission of undisclosed income and a description of the nature of the same could be treated as compliance with the condition of specifying and substantiating the manner in which the undisclosed income is earned as required by the section 271AAA

SH. AMIT JINDAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 2 71AAA for grant of immunity from penalty. The issue therefore is whether admission of undisclosed income and a description of the nature of the same could be treated as compliance with the condition of specifying and substantiating the manner in which the undisclosed income is earned as required by the section 271AAA

SH. ROSHAN LAL JINDAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1555/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

u/s 2 71AAA for grant of immunity from penalty. The issue therefore is whether admission of undisclosed income and a description of the nature of the same could be treated as compliance with the condition of specifying and substantiating the manner in which the undisclosed income is earned as required by the section 271AAA

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

undisclosed income as per explanation to section 271 AAA. The CIT(A) further held following the judgment of Jurisdictional 'Chandigarh Bench' in the case of 'Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 729/Chd/2016' that for claiming immunity from penalty u/s