SHELJA GOYAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, KITCHLU NAGAR, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

reassessed her income at Rs. 31,00,860, and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A for under-reporting due to misreporting

IPF VIKRAM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA

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

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

reassessed at Rs. 6,27,43,248/-, interest was charged under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D, and penalty proceedings

M/S APEEJAY EDUCATION SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

penalty in question, vide order dated 15.10.2019, observed as follows : "Vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 30.08.2019 the assessee was asked to submit some information/documents required for reassessment

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. ITO, SUNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings ought to be\ngiven to it......." (emphasis supplied) 8. 8. Similar view was\ntaken in another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhiraj\nSuri vs ACIT 98 1TD 87 (Del). In the said case, appeal was filed\nby the assessee before the Tribunal against the levy of penalty

INCOME TAX OFFICE, LUDHIANA vs. SRI GURU HARGOBIND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings, statutory notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for explanations and documentary evidence regarding the source of cash deposits, business activities, and bank ledgers. The assessee subsequently filed ITR-7 claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of Rs. 2,39,600 and sought adjournment; however, despite repeated opportunities spread over more than

INDO PACIFIC FINLEASE LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT CHANDIGARH 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the\nassessee are allowed

reassessment order, then the assessee has to step in and\nprotect its interests and the liberty to question even the validity of the\nreassessment proceedings ought to be given to it......." (emphasis\nsupplied) 8. 8. Similar view was taken in another decision of the Tribunal\nin the case of Dhiraj Suri vs ACIT 98 ITD 87 (Del). In the said

INDO PACIFIC FINLEASE LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT- CHANDIGARH 1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the\nassessee are allowed

reassessment order, then the assessee has to step in and\nprotect its interests and the liberty to question even the validity of the\nreassessment proceedings ought to be given to it......." (emphasis\nsupplied) 8. 8. Similar view was taken in another decision of the Tribunal\nin the case of Dhiraj Suri vs ACIT 98 ITD 87 (Del). In the said

RAVI KAKKAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Were Identical. In View Of The Aforesaid

reassessment for the financial year 2012-13. 6. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under Section 142(1) of the Act on 16.10.2019 and 14.12.2019, which remained uncomplied with by the assessee. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act on 18.12.2019, determining the total income

RAVI KAKKAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI

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

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Were Identical. In View Of The Aforesaid

reassessment for the financial year 2012-13. 6. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under Section 142(1) of the Act on 16.10.2019 and 14.12.2019, which remained uncomplied with by the assessee. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act on 18.12.2019, determining the total income

SAWASTIKA PRINTING & PACKAGING,KALA MAB vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NAHAN

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

Bench: the Hon'ble CIT(A)(NFAC) that assessee is having business turnover of Rs 16,77,30,943/-. While upholding the additions of Rs 20,81,000/- the Hon'ble CIT(A) (NFAC) has observed in last para of his order as under:-

reassessment proceedings, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details regarding the source, nature, and genuineness of the advances. The assessee furnished partial details such as bank statements, balance sheet, audit report, and ledger account of Shree Krishna Packaging; however, it failed to submit crucial supporting records such as cash book, bank book, confirmations from

GURMEET SINGH,PUNJAB vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), ROPAR, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 713/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Gurmeet Singh, Ito, बनाम 939, Type Ii, Ward 2(2), Nuhon Colony Ghanauli, Ropar Vs. Rupnagar 140113 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ageps7897P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal,Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27-08-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27-08-2025 आदेश/Order

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, it was noticed that the assessee had received gifts aggregating to ₹11,15,000/-. Out of these, amounts of ₹1,00,000/- each were received from three cousins, namely, Shri Baldev Singh, Shri Jaswinder Singh and Shri Nirmal Singh. The Assessing Officer treated the sum of ₹3,00,000/- as taxable

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

penalty appeal under Section 271(1)(c)]. 2. First we take ITA 238/CHD/2015 in assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which Ground Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 are general grounds which do not call for recording of any specific finding. The assessee has taken additional ground of appeal

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

penalty appeal under Section 271(1)(c)]. 2. First we take ITA 238/CHD/2015 in assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which Ground Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 are general grounds which do not call for recording of any specific finding. The assessee has taken additional ground of appeal

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

penalty appeal under Section 271(1)(c)]. 2. First we take ITA 238/CHD/2015 in assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which Ground Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 are general grounds which do not call for recording of any specific finding. The assessee has taken additional ground of appeal

M/S PNG TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

penalty appeal under Section 271(1)(c)]. 2. First we take ITA 238/CHD/2015 in assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal, out of which Ground Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 are general grounds which do not call for recording of any specific finding. The assessee has taken additional ground of appeal

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 1652 8 VISHNU COLONY, RAILWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153-A." 10. A bare perusal of this Section would reveal that it starts with a non obstante clause “not withstanding anything contained in Section” meaning thereby this Section has an over-riding effect over other Sections namely

SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, H.NO. 16528 VISHNU COLONY, RALIWAY ROAD, KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153-A." 10. A bare perusal of this Section would reveal that it starts with a non obstante clause “not withstanding anything contained in Section” meaning thereby this Section has an over-riding effect over other Sections namely

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