ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 10. The assessee also preferred appeals for the assessment years 2008- 09 and 2009-10 against levy of penalty under section 271B

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 10. The assessee also preferred appeals for the assessment years 2008- 09 and 2009-10 against levy of penalty under section 271B

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 10. The assessee also preferred appeals for the assessment years 2008- 09 and 2009-10 against levy of penalty under section 271B

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 10. The assessee also preferred appeals for the assessment years 2008- 09 and 2009-10 against levy of penalty under section 271B

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

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

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:

disallowing the same under section 37(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 13.11.2019 assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.85,35,091/-. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee showed turnover in excess of limit as specified in section 44AB of the Act, whereas

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)

disallowance if any, which is needed u/s.40A(3) of ITA Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/16 :- 6 -: the Act back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 8. Now, we take appeal of the assessee in ITA No.3398/Mds/2016. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that levy of penalty 9. u/s.271B of the Act was not warranted

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)

disallowance if any, which is needed u/s.40A(3) of ITA Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/16 :- 6 -: the Act back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 8. Now, we take appeal of the assessee in ITA No.3398/Mds/2016. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that levy of penalty 9. u/s.271B of the Act was not warranted

V SEETHARAMAN,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE, VILLUPURAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.229/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16

section 273B of the Act while vitiating the levy of penalty in relation thereto mechanically. 5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order imposing penalty u/s 271B of the Act was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that

P.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1222 & 1223/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri P. Senthil Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, P-2, Hig, Adyar Apartments, V. Business Ward Xv(3), Circular Road, Kottur Gardens, Chennai. Kotturpuram, Chennai - 600 085. Pan : Abbps 1019 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the orders of the lower authorities, accordingly the same are set aside. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. 15. Now coming to I.T.A. No.1222/Mds/2016, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271B

P.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1222 & 1223/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri P. Senthil Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, P-2, Hig, Adyar Apartments, V. Business Ward Xv(3), Circular Road, Kottur Gardens, Chennai. Kotturpuram, Chennai - 600 085. Pan : Abbps 1019 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the orders of the lower authorities, accordingly the same are set aside. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. 15. Now coming to I.T.A. No.1222/Mds/2016, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271B

S 1129 ERUMAPALAYAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY ,SALEM vs. ITO , NFAC , DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1092/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. S 1129 Erumapalayam Primary Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Op. Credit Society, National Faceless Assessment Annai Janaki Mgr Nagar, Centre, New Delhi. Erumapalayam, Salem 636 015. [Pan:Aaeas6676B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

disallowing the deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act. 3. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271B

PONNUSAMY VENUGOPAL,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD -1(6), SALEM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

disallowance of cash deposits is restricted to 50% at Rs.6,30,800/- as the appellant has not :- 3 -: been able to collate and link the earnings of the capital introduced with the said cash deposits by giving any cogent evidence and further, the daily cash book was not furnished to verify the claim and also considering the fact that

VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS CO-OP STORES LTD.,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 5, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1065/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Virudhunagar District Co-Operative Vs The Income Tax Officer, Consumers Co-Op. Stores Ltd. Ward-5, 165/2/62/1, Aruppukottai Road, Virudhunagar. Virudhunagar. Pan:Aaaav0586F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance of expenditure. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271B of the Act for failure to file tax audit report as required u/s.44AB of the Act for the impugned assessment year within the due date specified under the Act and hence, called upon the assessee to file necessary evidences as to why penalty shall 3 not be levied

AA531 KESARIMANGALAM PRIMARY AGRL CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,TIRUPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1) ERODE, ERODE

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2611/Chny/2024 िनधा&रण वष&/Assessment Year: 2016-17

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s.80P(2) of the Act on the ground that assessee has two classes of members; ‘A’ class as well as ‘B’ class. ‘A’ class members enjoy all rights whereas a ‘B’ class members are admitted for limited purpose of availing loans and do not enjoy any rights. Therefore, according to the AO, assessee was not entitled

GNANADURAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

disallowed sales tax payment u/sec. 43B, contribution to ESI & PF after due date u/sec. 36(1)(v)(a) and 25% of repairs and maintenance of vehicle as personal expenditure and added interest on bank accounts to the returned income and assessee income of "21,70,705/-. 4. The Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271B

GNANADURAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

disallowed sales tax payment u/sec. 43B, contribution to ESI & PF after due date u/sec. 36(1)(v)(a) and 25% of repairs and maintenance of vehicle as personal expenditure and added interest on bank accounts to the returned income and assessee income of "21,70,705/-. 4. The Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271B

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. SJ SURYAH, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

271B and 271(1)(c) are initiated separately." 4. As evident from the above recording made during the course of assessment proceeding, the entire legal requirement, i. initiation during the pendency of the proceeding ii. Recording of satisfaction and iii. Initiated for concealment of total income has been met. Section 271(1B) clarifies if due recording of reason for initiation

SHRI.S.J.SURYAH,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

271B and 271(1)(c) are initiated separately." 4. As evident from the above recording made during the course of assessment proceeding, the entire legal requirement, i. initiation during the pendency of the proceeding ii. Recording of satisfaction and iii. Initiated for concealment of total income has been met. Section 271(1B) clarifies if due recording of reason for initiation

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

271B of the Act in regard to various appeals of group cases regarding these two penalties agitated by assessee, the ld.counsel admitted that in these two penalties, the assessee has not maintained the books of account and hence, penalty u/s.271A can be uphold in relation to abated assessments but ld.counsel requested that in regard to unabated assessments, the issue