Babuji Jacob v. ITO

Prakashchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2024 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of V. 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate %&थ$कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri R. Clement Ramesh : Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 :

…t is relevant to consider the decision of Hon’ble At this stage, it is relevant to consider the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in [2021] Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Madras), where the Hon’ble High Court 430 ITR 259 (Madras), where the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with the has dealt with the issue of show cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act, and ow cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act, and ow cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act, and after considering its earlier decision in…

Muthurathinam, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2656/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Muthurathinam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27/29, Kumarappapuram, Ward 1(2) 1St Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Avypm 0862D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate By Virtual. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Penalty Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issue Sought To Be Urged By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] By Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ In Short) In Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Has Satisfied That Penalty Proceeding Is Being Initiated Separately For “Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income” Where As Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 04.01.2022 Levied Penalty For “Concealment Of Income”, Although In The Notice Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1) (C), The Ao Has Marked The Specified Limb As “That You Have Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income”.

…rticulars of income", while the order levying penalty was for "concealment of income" and that the penalty order is liable to be squashed for this sole reason. For this proposition, the appellant relied on the decision of jurisdictional High Court reported in 430 ITR 259. Hon'ble High Court in this decision held that Penalty Notice must specify whether there has been concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is undisputed that in the present case, the penalty notice dated 28.09.2021 clearly specified that it has been issued for 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'. Even…

Vital Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-III(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

…see being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And such actions of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts including the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad). We also note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded, would vitiate the penalt…

C.Vijayalakshmi, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Imposing Of Penalty Was Invalid, Because, It Didn'T Specify The Exact Fault On Which The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied & Drew Our Attention To Show Cause Notice Issued By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) R.W.S.274 Of The Act Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2012-13, Which We Perused & Will Adjudicate This Legal Issue. 3. As Discussed, The Assessee Has Assailed The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, Which Penalty Was Imposed By Ao According To Assessee Without Having Jurisdiction. According To Assessee, The Ld.Cit(A) While Passing The Impugned Order Has Not Considered The Fact That The Notice Issued By The Ao Before Imposition Of The Penalty Didn'T Specify The Exact Fault On Which The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied I.E. Whether The Assessee Had Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Or Have Concealed The Income & Hence Notice Is Bad In Law, Which Vitiates Levy Of Penalty. 4. In Respect Of The Aforesaid Legal Issue, First Of All We Have Perused The Show Cause Notice (Scn) Issued By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 Of The Act Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2012-13 By Virtue Of Which The Ao Gave Notice To The Assessee 'As To Why The Penalty Should Not Be Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Or Not? On Perusal Of Of The The Impugned Scn Dated :: 3 ::

…sessee being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And this action of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts including the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad). We also note that the Full bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded, would vitiate the penalty i…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jsr Infra Developers Private Limited, Vellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2253/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Jsr Infra Developers Private Income Tax, Limited, No. 4, 10A, East Central Circle 2(4), Cross Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai. Vellore 632 006, Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aadcj4440P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Justified In Cancelling The Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

…the said decision is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the given case. He placed on record the decision and argued that the ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the last decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Shri Babuji Jacob v. ITO 430 ITR 259 at page 32 of the paper book and 7 I.T.A. No.2253/Chny/24 vehemently argued that the ld. CIT(A) rightly followed and deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. 8. The ld. AR placed on record the order of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Chidambaram Lathadevi v. ITO in ITA No. 1564/Chny/2018 dated 31.03.2022 and argued that this Trib…

Dakshinamoorthy Kumaresan, Thiruvarur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thiruvarur

…2 ITA No.2452/Chny/2024 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee had not filed his return of income for the AY 2016-17 despite receipt of salary amounting to Rs.16,65,727/- earned during the relevant year as per the available information. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was re-opened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed ITR on 26.07.2022 declaring Total income of Rs.12,89,580/. The assessment was completed by the AO u/s 147 of the Act on 25.05.2023 accepting the returned income declared. However, as the assessee had offered income for tax…

Jayasakthi Knit Wear, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1758/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Jayasakthi Knit Wear, The Ito, 3/95, Thanneerpandal Colony, Ward-1(4), Cheyur Road, Tirupur. Karukkampalayam B.O. Avinashi, Tirupur-641 654. [Pan: Aaffj 4343 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…e Act is quashed and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner. 18. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Madras), where the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with the issue of show cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act, and after considering its earlier decision in the case of Sudaram Finance Ltd. v. ACIT reported in [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250, held that issuing a printed form of notice without striking inapplicable portion in the notice and no…

Melakandy Puthalath Farook, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1890/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Melekandy Puthalath Farook Acit बनाम/ Faraz No.9 Sbi Colony, Corporate Circle-2(1) Vs. Sastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapf-2644-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr

…he Act is quashed and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner. 18. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Madras), where the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with the issue of show cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act, and after considering its earlier decision in the case of Sudaram Finance Ltd. v. ACIT reported in [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250, held that issuing a printed form of notice without striking inapplicable portion in the notice and no…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. S. Deepalakshmi, Panruti

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:991/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Ms. S. Deepalakshmi, Income Tax, Vs. No.190, Annai Indira Gandhi Central Circle -2(2), Salai, Chennai. Panruti – 607 108. Pan: Awtpd 8317Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Smt. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""यथ"क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai - 19 Dated 13.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore For The Assessment Year 2016-17 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 31.12.2018. 2. The Sole Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied By Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.51,18,200/- For The Reason That There Is No Specific Charge Framed While Initiating Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act I.E., Whether Assessee Has Concealed The Particulars Of Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:991/CHNY/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner of Ms. S. Deepalakshmi, Income Tax, Vs. No.190, Annai Indira Gandhi Central Circle -2(2), Salai, Chennai. Panruti – 607 108. PAN: AWTPD 8317Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Smt. R. Anita, Addl. CIT ""यथ"क" ओर से/Respondent by : None सुनवाई क…

Arulsundaram Nithya, Erode vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1112/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Smt.Arulsundaram Nithya, The Acit, 11, Poondurai Road, Circle-1, Ragupathinaickenpalayam, Erode. Erode-638 002. [Pan: Abspn 5094 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…the Act), the impugned notice is infirm and consequently vitiates the penalty, which decision to be deleted for that we rely on the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad) and also the decision of the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay). 4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, since assessee was handicapped from defending herself due to the defect in the notice which goes to the root of the penalty levied by the…

Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers Private Limited, Madurai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.794/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers – The Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle-2, 285/91 B, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai. Madurai-625 001. [Pan: Aarcs 2844 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…ssee furnished inaccurate particulars of his income, or concealed the particulars of his income. In order to buttress his arguments, he has cited the case- law/decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob reported in 430 ITR 259 (Madras), wherein, in on an identical case, penalty was levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act; and the assessee challenged the imposition of penalty, inter alia, on the ground that the notice issued by AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proposed penalty was initiated for concealment of particu…

Poosappan Arulsundaram, Erode vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1130/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri Poosappan Arulsundaram, Acit, 11, Poondurai Road, Circle-1, Ragupathinaickenpalayam, Erode. Erode-638 002. [Pan: Acgpa 7995 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1130/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 v. Shri Poosappan Arulsundaram, ACIT, 11, Poondurai Road, Circle-1, Ragupathinaickenpalayam, Erode. Erode-638 002. [PAN: ACGPA 7995 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit…

Aplnagappa Chettiar, Madurai vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.748/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri A.Pl.Nagappa Chettiar, The Acit, Plot No.353, Anna Nagar, Circle-3, Madurai-625 020. Trichy.

…ssee being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And this action of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts including the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad). We also note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying the fault/charge against which the assessee is being proceeded, would vitiate the pena…

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.957 To 959/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Om Shakthy Tower-2, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3), No.Ts 64, Chennai. Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aafpr 6559 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…ssessee furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or concealed the particulars of his income. In order to buttress his arguments, he has cited the case-law/decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob reported in 430 ITR 259 (Madras), wherein, in an identical case, penalty was levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act; and the assessee challenged the imposition of penalty, inter alia, on the ground that the notice issued by AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proposed penalty was initiated for concealment of particu…

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.957 To 959/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Om Shakthy Tower-2, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3), No.Ts 64, Chennai. Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aafpr 6559 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…ssessee furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or concealed the particulars of his income. In order to buttress his arguments, he has cited the case-law/decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob reported in 430 ITR 259 (Madras), wherein, in an identical case, penalty was levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act; and the assessee challenged the imposition of penalty, inter alia, on the ground that the notice issued by AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proposed penalty was initiated for concealment of particu…

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.957 To 959/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Om Shakthy Tower-2, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3), No.Ts 64, Chennai. Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aafpr 6559 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…ssessee furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or concealed the particulars of his income. In order to buttress his arguments, he has cited the case-law/decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob reported in 430 ITR 259 (Madras), wherein, in an identical case, penalty was levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act; and the assessee challenged the imposition of penalty, inter alia, on the ground that the notice issued by AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proposed penalty was initiated for concealment of particu…

Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 V. Shri Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, The Dy. Commissioner – Kothari Buildings, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 114, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Corporate Circle-4(2), Chennai-600 034. Chennai.

…ssee being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And this action of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts including the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad). We also note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying ITA Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 (AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08) Pradeep Dayanand Kothari :: 4 :: the f…

Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, Chennai vs. DCIT, Tax Corporate Cricle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 V. Shri Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, The Dy. Commissioner – Kothari Buildings, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 114, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Corporate Circle-4(2), Chennai-600 034. Chennai.

…ssee being proceeded against for levy of penalty. And this action of the Tribunal has been upheld by several judgments of the various High Courts including the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in (2021) 430 ITR 259 (Mad). We also note that the Full bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT reported in [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bombay) dated 11.03.2021 held that the show cause notice issued prior to levy of penalty without specifying ITA Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 (AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08) Pradeep Dayanand Kothari :: 4 :: the f…