DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

house and later, the cash recovered by the police. As per direction of the court, the Police Department handed over the cash to the Income Tax Department. According to the assessee, in these circumstances the said transaction could not be routed through the bank. 5.0 The assessee's claim that the purchaser intended to deposit the cash and obtain

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

house and later, the cash recovered by the police. As per direction of the court, the Police Department handed over the cash to the Income Tax Department. According to the assessee, in these circumstances the said transaction could not be routed through the bank. 5.0 The assessee's claim that the purchaser intended to deposit the cash and obtain

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

house and later, the cash recovered by the police. As per direction of the court, the Police Department handed over the cash to the Income Tax Department. According to the assessee, in these circumstances the said transaction could not be routed through the bank. 5.0 The assessee's claim that the purchaser intended to deposit the cash and obtain

NAMMALVAR LINGUSAMY,VALSARAVAKKAM vs. CIT [APPEALS]-14, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.532/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nammalvar Lingusamy, Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of 9, Janaki Nagar, Solai Krishnan Street, Income Tax, Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087. Non Corporate Range 20, Chennai. [Pan:Acbpn0214G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J.K. Reddy, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 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 31.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 24 Days In Filing The Appeal & Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause, The 2

property 4 I.T.A. No.532/Chny/22 and received part consideration in cash of ₹.1,60,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271D of the Act. As the assessee has received part consideration in cash, which is in violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D

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)

house property and 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

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)

house property and 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

GNANASELVI UDAYAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.326/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 271D of the Act. 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee had borrowed loan from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and purchased house property

NOORDEEN AHMED AMINA ,SALEM vs. ITO , NFAC , DELHI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1118/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Noordeen Ahmed Amina Ito बनाम/ 18/27, Ranga Nagar, Suramangalam, Nfac Vs. Salem-636 005. New Delhi. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Bxepa-3157-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V.Lakshmi(Advocate)- Ld Ar "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Hema Bhupal (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271D For Rs.5 Lacs For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of Impugned Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 271D Of The Act Vide Order Dated 22-02-2022. In The Penalty Order, The Penalty Has Been Levied On The Finding That The Assessee Has Received Rs.5 Lacs In Cash On Sale Of Immovable Property

271D and therefore clubbed together for the sake of convenience. The facts are admitted and not disputed. The assessee sold a property through a sale deed registered on 6thJuly, 2017 to one Mr. G. Ravikumar. The aggregate consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs is received by her as follows. Rs. 5,00,000 in cash, Rs. 39,50,000 through cheque

THOMAS VICTOR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 19(6), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

271D of the Act. The original grounds and the additional grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.” 22. After having considered the judicial precedent on the issue, we are of the view that the validity of the 147 order passed by the AO can be assailed before us, even if for any reason, the assessee didn’t challenge

MERCY EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2231/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mercy Education Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Sree Gokulam Towers, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Arcot Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aactm 6190M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026

271D of the Act. The original grounds and the additional grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.” 22. After having considered the judicial precedent on the issue, we are of the view that the validity of the 147 order passed by the AO can be assailed before us, even if for any reason, the assessee didn’t challenge