P.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13. Shri. P. Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, P-2, Hig Adyar Apartments, Non Corporate Ward 3(3) Kottur Gardens, Chennai. Circular Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Abbps 1019H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital account 15,94,487 Purchases for which payments have been made 38,44,069 in cash As per ld. Assessing Officer assessee had violated Sec. 40A(3) of the Act in making cash payments of "38,44,069/-. He made an addition of the said amount and completed assessment. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before ld. 4. Commissioner

R. ANBUVEL RAJAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL RANGEL, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

gain by not filing the appeals. The action of the assessee can’t be termed to action of the assessee can’t be termed to be deliberate and therefore, we be deliberate and therefore, we condone the delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals and proceed to condone the delay of 262 days in filing of both

R. ANBUVEL RAJAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL RANGE 1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

gain by not filing the appeals. The action of the assessee can’t be termed to action of the assessee can’t be termed to be deliberate and therefore, we be deliberate and therefore, we condone the delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals and proceed to condone the delay of 262 days in filing of both

SILUVAIKANI CHELLIAH,CHENGALPATTU vs. ITO, NCW-22(6),, TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

capital gains at Rs.22,79,080/-. 4. Subsequently, penalty proceedings u/s.271D of the Act were initiated by issuance of a show cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s 271D of the Act, dated 16.06.2022, by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Range- :-3-: ITA. No.:2655 /Chny/2024 22, Chennai (TBM). The said proceedings were later assigned to the FAO, who passed

ASIANET COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

2(19AA) of the Act? The Ld.counsel submitted that there is no discussion in the assessment order. However, it is not necessary to discuss each and everything in the assessment order. Referring to the judgement of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537, the Ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that when an Assessing Officer raised

SAMIAPPAGOUNDER DHARMARAJ,TIRUPUR vs. ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gains. The AO after verification of the details filed by the assessee, took note of the fact that there was no cash deposits in the bank account even during demonetization period. However, he noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.7,68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account on 08.11.2016 for the release

AMIT KAPOOR,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gains. The AO after verification of the details filed by the assessee, took note of the fact that there was no cash deposits in the bank account even during demonetization period. However, he noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.7,68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account on 08.11.2016 for the release

MR. NANDAGOPAL,PONDICHERRY vs. JCIT, PUDUCHERRY

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1789/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Nandagopal, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Door No. 17, 3Rd Cross Street, Income Tax, Gnanaprakasam Nagar, Saram, Puducherry. Pondicherry 605 008. [Pan:Auypn5080H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Penalty Imposed Under Section 271D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

2 I.T.A. No.1789/Chny/24 3. We note that the JCIT proceeded to impose the penalty of ₹.13,85,000/- under section 271D of the Act by holding that the assessee accepted cash of ₹.8,85,000/- and ₹.5,00,000/- from the buyer towards sale of immovable property. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. 4. Before