How many judgments cite P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT?

48 judgments on BharatTax cite P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT (416 ITR 336), spanning 2019 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271B, Section 44AB, Section 143(3), Section 139(1), Section 250, Section 273B.

P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT

416 ITR 336High Court2019#2425 most cited

What is P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT authority for?

Penalty under section 271B is not leviable for a venial technical breach, such as the late filing of a tax audit report, if there is no mala fide intention and the assessee demonstrates reasonable cause.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

P. Senthil Kumar v. PCIT · penalty under section 271B · section 44AB · section 273B · reasonable cause · venial technical breach · bona fide intention · levy of penalty · tax audit report

Sections most often in play

Section 271B Section 44AB Section 143(3)Section 139(1)Section 250 Section 273B Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271b section 271b section 273b section 273 section 44ab section 44a levy of penalty section 44 reasonable cause section 274 section 271 section 27

Judgments citing P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT

NASEER AHMATH RISWANA FATHIMA,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(4), CHEENAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3415/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3415/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. K.Vishwa padmanabhan, C.A ()For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

…mala fide intention, but it is venial technical breach and for this reason, penalty u/s.271B of the Act, cannot be levied. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT reported in 416 ITR 336, where an identical issue had been considered by the Court and held that for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention, penalty cannot be levied. The ITAT Cochin Bench in ITA No.411/Cochin/2018 vide order dated 05.02.2019 had held that once audit Naseer Ahmath Riswana Fathima :- 4 -: report has been made available before the AO, wh…

KALAIARASAN SELVARAJ,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD 1(6), SALEM, SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3448/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Kumar Chandan, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…ble; and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit cases for imposing penalty on the assessee and for such preposition, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Senthil Kumar v. CIT reported in (2019) 416 ITR 336 (Mad.)(HC). Hence, we cancel the penalty imposed by the authorities below. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on the 04th day of February, 2026, in Chennai. (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (एबी टी. वक") (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "याियक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे"ई/Chennai, "दनांक/Dated…

S 1081 KASTHURIPATTY PRIMARY AGRICULTUAL COOPERTIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,SALEM vs. ITO WARD 1(6), SALEM

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

ITA 1637/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…– Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. :: 5 :: technical breach and for this reason, penalty u/s.271B of the Act, cannot be levied. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT reported in 416 ITR 336, where an identical issue had been considered by the Court and held that for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention, penalty cannot be levied. The ITAT Cochin Bench in ITA No.411/Cochin/2018 vide order dated 05.02.2019 had held that once audit report has been made available before the AO, when the assessment proceedings were comp…

SREE SIVA CHAITANYA AGRO INDUSTRIES,POLAMURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 256/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) Sree Siva Chaitanya Agro Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Industries, Ward-1, 3-81, Toorpu Peta, Polamuru, Kakinada. Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Acsfs5787Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Gangaraju Sarma, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 13/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri M. Gangaraju Sarma, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

…unts were audited by the Accountant but the Tax Audit Report was filed with a delay. Further, the Ld. AR also relied on various decisions of the Tribunal and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Senthil Kumar vs. Pr. CIT [2019] 416 ITR 336 (Mad.) in support of his contention that since the assessee has filed the Tax Audit Report much prior to passing of the Assessment Order, penalty U/s. 271B of the Act cannot be levied. The Ld. AR pleaded to delete the penalty levied U/s. 271B of the Act. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative [“Ld. DR”] heavily relied on the o…

RAMALINGAM KARTHIKEYA NARAYANAN,MADURAI vs. DCIT, NCC-2, MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1684/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1684/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramalingam Karthikeya Narayanan, Deputy Commissioner Of 2/30, Ponmeni Periyavar Street, V. Income Tax, Sakthivelammal Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle -2, Arasaradi H.O Madurai South, Madurai. Madurai – 625 016. [Pan: Adrpn-5099-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A. Nikitha, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024

For Appellant: Ms. A. Nikitha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…nable; and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for imposing penalty on the assessee and for such preposition, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of P.Senthil Kumar v. CIT reported in (2019) 416 ITR 336 (Mad.)(HC) and also the decision of the Tribunal Cuttak Bench in the case of Sibonarayan Patro & Bros Vs. ITO [1998] 67 ITD 1 (CTK). :-5-: ITA. No:1684/Chny/2024 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 04th September, 2024 at Chennai. (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (एस एस िव"ने" रिव) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) (S…

ANITA YOGISH PAI,KANNUR vs. NFAC, KANNUR

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

ITA 287/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Anita Yogish Pai, Vs. Ito, Kcp13, 200A M/S. N. S. Pai Petroleum, Ward –1 & Tps, Keezhur, Iritty, Kannur. Kannur – 670 703, Kerala. Pan : Anypp 6710 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Jayaganesh, Dr(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Jayaganesh, DR(ITAT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271BSection 275Section 44A

…mala fide intention, but it is venial technical breach and for this reason, penalty u/s.271B of the Act, cannot be levied This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon 'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT reported in 416 ITR 336, where an identical issue had been considered by the Court and held that for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention, penalty cannot be levied The ITAT Cochin Bench in ITA No.411/Cochin/2018 vide order dated 05.02.2019 had held that once audit report has been made available before the AO, when the assessment proceedings were compl…

DAWALSAHEB BABUSAHEB SULTANBHAI,DHARWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HUBLI

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

ITA 1181/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Dawalsaheb Babusaheb Sultanbhai, Vs. Ito, 1A, Mehaboobnagar, Ward – 1(1), Dharwad – 580 008. Hubli. Pan : Aqzps 4249 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 274Section 44A

…tention, but it is venial Page 7 of 8 technical breach and for this reason, penalty u/s.271B of the Act, cannot be levied This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon 'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT reported in 416 ITR 336, where an identical issue had been considered by the Court and held that for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention, penalty cannot be levied The ITAT Cochin Bench in ITA No.411/Cochin/2018 vide order dated 05.02.2019 had held that once audit report has been made available before the AO, when the assessment proceedings were compl…

GOODWILL TEAM PAPERS LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, MADURAI

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

ITA 813/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 813/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 271BSection 44A

…mala fide intention, but it is venial technical breach and for this reason, penalty u/s.271B of the Act, cannot be levied. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT reported in 416 ITR 336, where an identical issue had been considered by the Court and held that for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention, penalty cannot be levied. The ITAT Cochin Bench in ITA No.411/Cochin/2018 vide order dated 05.02.2019 had held that once audit report has been made available before the AO, when the assessment proceedings were comp…

LAKSHMANANA NACHAMMAI,MADURAI vs. ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 2, MADURAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 543/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.542 & 543/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Lakshmanan Nachammai, The Acit, Plot No.59, Corporate Circle-2, Anna Nagar, Madurai. Madurai-625 020. [Pan: Adhpn 3775 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…s for imposing penalty on ITA Nos.542 & 543/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18 & 2018-19) Lakshmanan Nachammai :: 4 :: the assessee and for such preposition, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Senthil Kumar v. CIT reported in (2019) 416 ITR 336 (Mad.)(HC) 6. In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on the 25th day of June, 2024, in Chennai. (एबी टी. वक") (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "याियक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे"ई/Chennai, "दनांक/Dated: 25th June, 2024. TLN, Sr.PS आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy to…

LAKSHMANANA NACHAMMAI,MADURAI vs. ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 2, MADURAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 542/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

THE MANNARKKAD RURAL SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MANNARKKAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and stay application are dismissed

ITA 871/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettoor, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 80P

…ext, we may, even as we are bound by the decision in Peroorkkada SCB Ltd. (supra), consider the assessee’s reliance on the order by the Tribunal in Muthiah Lakshmanan (supra). The same is rendered relying on the decision in P. Senthil Kumar vs. Pr. CIT [2019] 416 ITR 336 (Mad) by the jurisdictional High Court. In the facts of that case, the assessee explained the delayed furnishing of the audit report as due to the sudden, i.e., without notice, resigning of the Auditor in August, 2012, causing dislocation of work. The same was found satisfactory by the Hon'ble Court. Its observation, alluding to Hindustan Steel L…

A 1235 MADURAI TALUK AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ITO,NONCORP WARD-1(1), MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 655/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.655/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. A 1235 Madurai Taluk Agricultural- The Income Tax Officer, Producers Co-Operative- Non-Corporate Ward-1(1), Marketing Society Ltd., Madurai. 31 Visuvasapuri, 3Rd Street, Gnanaolivupuram, Madurai-625 016. [Pan: Aaaaa 9671 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…mala fide intention, but it is venial technical breach and for this reason, penalty u/s.271B of the Act, cannot be levied. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT reported in 416 ITR 336, where an identical issue had been considered by the Court and held that for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention, penalty cannot be levied. The ITAT Cochin Bench in ITA No.411/Cochin/2018 vide order dated 05.02.2019 had held that once audit report has been A 1235 Madurai Taluk Agricultural Producers Co-op. Marketing Society Lt…

M/S J.V.KULKARNI & FRIENDS ASSOCIATES,MALKAPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 468/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…ew our attention to the case laws in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. reported in 83 ITR 26 (SC) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and placed reliance the said decision which was followed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Senthil Kumar reported in 416 ITR 336 (Mad.). The ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A). 6. After hearing both the parties, we note that the provisions u/s. 44AB of the Act mandates every person carrying on business requires audit of books, if turnover or gross receipts exceeds Rs.45 lacs. As discussed above, the assessee has shown gross receipt as Rs.36.33 crores, the provisions u/s…

M/S J.V.KULKARNI & FRIENDS ASSOCIATES,MALKAPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 464/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

PONNUSAMY SENTHIL,ERODE vs. ITO WARD 1(4), ERODE

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

ITA 614/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.614/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ponnusamy Senthil, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Link Mobiles, 6/1098, Ward 1(4), Erode. Kalingarayanpalayam Pudur, Mettunasuvampalayam, Bhavani, Erode 638 301. [Pan:Cufps2704G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 16.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…mala fide intention, but it is venial technical breach and for this reason, penalty u/s.271B of the Act, cannot be levied. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT reported in 416 ITR 336, where an identical issue had been considered by the Court and held that for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention, penalty cannot be levied. The ITAT Cochin Bench in ITA No.411/Cochin/2018 vide order dated 05.02.2019 had held that once audit report has been made available before the AO, when the assessment proceedings were comp…

BALAKRISHNAN JAGADEESAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO,CHE-C-(65)(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 491/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.491/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Balakrishnan Jagadeesan, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 30, East Park Road, Income Tax, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai. [Pan:Abppn6488B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 13Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 37(1)Section 44A

…mala fide intention, but it is venial technical breach and for this reason, penalty u/s.271B of the Act, cannot be levied. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT reported in 416 ITR 336, where an identical issue had been considered by the Court and held that for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention, penalty cannot be levied. The ITAT Cochin Bench in ITA No.411/Cochin/2018 vide order dated 05.02.2019 had held that once audit report has been made available before the AO, when the assessment proceedings were comp…

RAJENDRAN SREEDHARAN,KANYAKUMARI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, NAGERCOIL

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

ITA 166/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 166/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajendran Sreedharan, Assistant Commissioner Of 13-85/42A, Parthitta Vilai Veedu, V. Income-Tax, Chitharal, Chitharal Post, Circle -1, Kanyakumari District – 629 151. Nagercoil. [Pan:Afqpr-2835-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. G. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenviasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri. G. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenviasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

…/Chny/2023 the Act, then delay in filing of said audit report can be considered as venial breach, for which penalty cannot be levied and this principal is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Senthil Kumar vs Pr. CIT [2019] 416 ITR 336 (Mad). Further, the ITAT, Chennai Benches in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2017-18 in ITA No. 165/Chny/2023, had considered an identical issue and held that for belated filing of tax audit report, if said report was made available to the Assessing Officer before completion of assessment, penalty u/s. 271B of the Act cannot be levied. Th…

AYYANAR STORES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD-8(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 628/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 628/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ayyanar Stores, The Income-Tax Officer, No. 5/38, Valluvar Salai, V. Non Corporate Ward 8(3), Ramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 089. [Pan: Aajfa-3545-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 271BSection 44A

…mala fide intention, but it is venial technical breach and for this reason, penalty u/s.271B of the Act, cannot be levied. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT reported in 416 ITR 336, where an identical issue had been considered by the Court and held that for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention, penalty cannot be levied. The ITAT Cochin Bench in ITA No.411/Cochin/2018 vide order dated 05.02.2019 had held that once audit report has been made available before the AO, when the assessment proceedings were comp…

MUTHIAN LAKSHMANAN,MADURAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, , MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 652/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.652/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr.Muthiah Lakshmanan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- Plot No.59, Anna Nagar, Of Income Tax, Madurai-625 020. Non-Corporate Circle, Madurai. [Pan: Aaapl 9022 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.T. Vasudevan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…vy of penalty needs to be considered in light of delay in filing of Audit Report as required under the Act. Admittedly, it is a well settled principle of law by the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Senthil Kumar v. PCIT reported in 416 ITR 336 (Madras), where the Hon’ble Madras High Court by considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) held that non-filing of Audit Report on or before due date, is a technical breach and admittedly, when such Tax Audit Report has been filed before assess…

VELLAKOVIL PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,TIRUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TIRUPUR

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

ITA 52/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.49, 50, 51 & 52/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Vellakovil Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Bank Limited, Ward 1(4), Tirupur. Muthur Road, Vellakovil, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu 638 111. [Pan:Aaatv8760C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 23.11.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Passed Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…mala fide intention, but it is venial technical breach and for this reason, penalty u/s.271B of the Act, cannot be levied. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT reported in 416 ITR 336, where an identical issue had been considered by the Court and held that for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention, penalty cannot be levied. The ITAT Cochin Bench in ITA No.411/Cochin/2018 vide order dated 05.02.2019 had held that once audit report has been made available before the AO, when the assessment proceedings were comp…

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3