P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT

416 ITR 336High Court2019#2397 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.

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 271BSection 44ABSection 143(3)Section 139(1)Section 250Section 273BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271bsection 271bsection 273bsection 273section 44absection 44alevy of penaltysection 44reasonable causesection 274section 271section 27

Judgments citing P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT

Vellakovil Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited, Tirupur vs. Income Tax Officer, Tirupur

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

ITA 51/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

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…

Vellakovil Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited, Tirupur vs. Income Tax Officer, Tirupur

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

ITA 50/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

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…

Vellakovil Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited, Tirupur vs. Income Tax Officer, Tirupur

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

ITA 49/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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…

Encore Construction Consortium Privae Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.443/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Encore Construction- The Income Tax Officer, Consortium Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle-1(1), H-1, Ramapuram, Chennai. Lumiers Enclave, Giri Nagar, Chennai-600 089. [Pan: Aadce 0355 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Ca ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Mr.P. sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273Section 27ISection 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…

Shri Tirlok Singh Through Legal Heir Gurnam Singh, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Gurdaspur

Appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the manner discussed as above

ITA 71/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 70 & 71/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tarlok Singh Through Legal Heir The Ito Gurnam Singh Dorangla Ward Gurdaspur-143521- Punjab Gurdaspur

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri V.S. Aggarwal, ITP
Section 144Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…/- in respect of personal nature. In support he placed reliance on the following decisions: • 2023(3) TMI 661-ITAT Chennai, Shri Ramunaicker Raja, Prop: M/s R.R. Plaza Vs. The ACIT,Circle 2(1), Salem • 2019(1) TMI 222-Madras High Court other Citation: [2019] 416 ITR 336(Mad) P. Senthil Kumar Vs. Principal CIT-5, Chennai 4. The Ld. DR on the other side relied on the impugned order. 5. We have heard both the sides, peruse records, impugned order and citation placed before us. 5.1 It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi has confirmed the penalty under section 271B of the Act, levied by the Assessing Officer f…

Shri Tirlok Songh Through Legal Heir Gurnam Singh, Gurdaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Gurdaspur

Appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the manner discussed as above

ITA 70/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 70 & 71/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tarlok Singh Through Legal Heir The Ito Gurnam Singh Dorangla Ward Gurdaspur-143521- Punjab Gurdaspur

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri V.S. Aggarwal, ITP
Section 144Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…/- in respect of personal nature. In support he placed reliance on the following decisions: • 2023(3) TMI 661-ITAT Chennai, Shri Ramunaicker Raja, Prop: M/s R.R. Plaza Vs. The ACIT,Circle 2(1), Salem • 2019(1) TMI 222-Madras High Court other Citation: [2019] 416 ITR 336(Mad) P. Senthil Kumar Vs. Principal CIT-5, Chennai 4. The Ld. DR on the other side relied on the impugned order. 5. We have heard both the sides, peruse records, impugned order and citation placed before us. 5.1 It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi has confirmed the penalty under section 271B of the Act, levied by the Assessing Officer f…

Sumit Goel, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-51(5), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2514/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2514/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sumit Goel Ito 6/78, Wea, Ajmal Khan Road, Vs. Ward 51(5) Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Afppg4431F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 271BSection 44A

…elief. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [83 ITR 26]. The Ld. Counsel placing reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of P. Senthil Kumar vs. PCIT [416 ITR 336] submits that there is a reasonable cause in not getting the accounts audited and furnished audit report before due date for filing of return and, therefore, no penalty is leviable u/s 271B of the Act. 5 I.T.A. No. 2514/Del/2022 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. Heard rival submissions, perused t…

Rajendran Sreedharan, Kanyakumari vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Nagercoil

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

ITA 165/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.165/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendran Sreedharan, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 13-85/42A Parthitta Vilai Veedu, Income Tax, Chitharal, Chitharal Post, Circle 1, Nagercoil. Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu 629 151. [Pan:Afqpr2835H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak For Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023 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 26.12.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak for Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)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…

Udapi Narayana Rao Padmanabh Rao, Nanjangud vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Mysore

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

ITA 136/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao B., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 271Section 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…

Mathavankurichi Primary Agricultural Co Operative Society, Thandavankadu Post Tuticorin vs. ITO, Che-W- (513) (92), Chennai

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

ITA 251/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.251/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 Mathavankurichi Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Society, Che-W-(513)(92), Mathavankurichi Village, Chennai. Thandavankadu Post, Tuticorin 628 206, Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aacam0533H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak, Cit & : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2023 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 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44ASection 80P

…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…

Pondicherry Power Corporation Limited, Pondicherry vs. NFAC

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

ITA 249/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.249/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 Pondicherry Power Corporation Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited,10, 2Nd Cross, Jawahar Nagar, Che-C-(171)(1), Boomianpet, Puducherry 605 005. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacp6507E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Meenakshi Sundar, Ca ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak, Cit & : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 30.03.2023 : 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 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Passed Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri V. Meenakshi Sundar, CA
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…

Puducherry Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Puducherry vs. NFAC

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

ITA 105/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.105/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Puducherry Tourism Development Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Corporation Limited, Che-C-(171)(1), 40, Goubert Avenue Beach Road, Chennai. Puducherry 605 001. [Pan:Aadcp5609G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Meenakshi Sundar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2023 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 13.12.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Passed Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri V. Meenakshi Sundar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(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…

P. Kalaiselvi, Polur vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 984/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.984/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ms.Palani Kalai Selvi, The Asst. Commissioner – No.2A, Old No.7, Of Income Tax, Abdul Sukkur St., Circle-1, Polur-606 608. Vellore. [Pan: Bcapk 5385 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…pvt ltd. 43 ITD 703 (Hyd); Indian handloom textiles vs AO 68 ITD 560 (Cal); Auto square vs AO 43 ITD 259 (Pat). 2.13ln any view of the matter, the AO ought to have followed the binding decision of the Jurisdiction Madras High Court in P.Sehthilkumar vs PCIT, 416 ITR 336 (MAD) that non filing of audit report u/s 44AB before the 'due date' is only a technical breach and that if the audit report is available at the time of assessment, then Penalty u/s 271B is NOT LEVIABLE (cited in para 8 of my reply - reproduced in page 4 of order), but AO without application of mind says in para 4.2 of order that there are no dec…

Ramunaicker Raja, Attur vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Salem

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

ITA 603/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.603/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Ramunaicker Raja, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Prop: M/S. R.R. Plaza, No. 6, Income Tax, Thayumanavar Street, Circle 2(1), Salem. Attur 636 102. [Pan:Accpr2046P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2023 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 13.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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…

M/S. Balaji Logistics, Thiruvallur vs. ACIT, Ncc - 4 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 2248/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2248/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.Balaji Logistics, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.14, Jeevanlal Nagar, Of Income Tax, Thiruvottiyur, Non-Corporate Circle-4(1), Thiruvallur-600 019. Chennai. [Pan: Aalfb 2990 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 27Section 271BSection 273Section 273BSection 27ISection 44Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथा, माननीय लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2248/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s.Balaji Logistics, v. The Asst. Commissioner- No.14, Jeevanlal Nagar, of Income Tax, Thiruvottiyur, Non-Corporate Circle-4(1), Thiruvallur-600 019. Chennai. [PAN: AALFB 2990 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.Y. Sridhar, CA…

Tpd 101 Uthangarai Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited, Krishnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 1, Krishnagiri

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

ITA 152/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.152/Chny/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. T P D 101 Uthangarai Milk- V. The Income Tax Officer, Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd., Ward-I, 1, Pondichery Main Road, Krishnagiri. Uthangarai, Krishnagiri-635 208. [Pan: Aabat 0377 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi- Venkataraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2022 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29.06.2022

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi-For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44ASection 80P(2)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर िसंह, माननी यउपा"" एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथा, माननीय लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.152/Chny/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. T P D 101 Uthangarai Milk- v. The Income Tax Officer, Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., Ward-I, 1, Pondichery Main Road, Krishnagiri. Uthangarai, Krishnagiri-635 208. [PAN: AABAT 0377 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.T.S.Lakshm…

M/S.Greens Fuel & Services, Vatakara vs. The ITO, Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 576/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S.Greens Fuel & Services, Income Tax Officer, Door No.2/4586, Narayana Vs Ward-2(2), Nagaram, Kozhikode Vatakara Pan : Aagfg6453R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 275(1)(c)Section 44A

…essment proceedings and hence penalty u/s.271 B is not leviable as per the following decisions, which may be considered by the Hon. Bench: 1. [2019] 70 ITR (Trib) (S.N.)10 (Cochin) dt 22.01.2019 T.T.KURUVILLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2. [2019] 416 ITR 336 (Mad) dt.18.12.12018 P.SENTHIL KUMAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [Copy of the above decisions are enclosed] 9. I may request the Hon. Bench be kind enough to consider the above submissions along with the decisions of the Hon. Bench and the Hon. High Court of Madras on the same issue and the penalty levied u/s.271B may be cancelled.…

Air India Air Transport Services Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2856/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm (Virtual Court Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2856/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Tamboli & MsFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. DR by
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 274Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP, & Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM (Virtual Court Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2856/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT Circle-9(1)(1), M/s Air India Air R. No. 5, 3rd floor, Mettal Transport Services Ltd. 1st floor, Transport बिधम/ Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Workshop Building GSD Vs. Complex Sahar Village, Mumbai-400 099 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAECA6186G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Aditya Tamboli & Ms. Bhavani Shukla, Ld. ARs by प्रत्यथीकीओरस…

V Kastri, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3198/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 273BSection 274Section 44A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3198/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2013-2014. Smt. V. Kastri, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Prop: Om Muruga Enterprises, Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), 13/3, 1st, Chinnametupalayam, Chennai. Kaladipet, Chennai 600 079. [PAN AHEPK 5079L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. K. Ravi, Advocate ""…

Smt. Harichandran Kaleeswari, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Range - 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2216/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. I. Dinesh, Advocate
Section 148Section 271Section 271BSection 44A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2215 & 2216/CHNY/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2014-2015 & 2015-2016. Smt. Harichandran Kaleeswari, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.806/665B, T.H. Road, Non Corporate Range 5(1) Soundarapandi Nagar, Chennai. Thiruvotriyur, Chennai 600 019. [PAN ANTPK 6594K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appe…