MUTHURATHINAM,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), TIRUPPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2656/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Muthurathinam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27/29, Kumarappapuram, Ward 1(2) 1St Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Avypm 0862D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate By Virtual. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Penalty Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issue Sought To Be Urged By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] By Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ In Short) In Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Has Satisfied That Penalty Proceeding Is Being Initiated Separately For “Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income” Where As Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 04.01.2022 Levied Penalty For “Concealment Of Income”, Although In The Notice Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1) (C), The Ao Has Marked The Specified Limb As “That You Have Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income”.

u/s. 148. However, while completing the assessment, the assessing officer treated the additional income of Rs.19,98,843 offered by the appellant as 'business income' as against his claim as "Income from Other Sources" in the return of income. Penalty proceedings under section 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

business. For the A.Y.2015-16, the assessee filed his\nreturn of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 23.11.2015, declaring a\ntotal income of Rs.34,01,220/-. The case was selected for scrutiny\nand the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on\n16.08.2017, determining the total income at Rs.42,26,220/-.\n5. A search and seizure operation u/s.132

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

business. For the A.Y.2015-16, the assessee filed his\nreturn of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 23.11.2015, declaring a\ntotal income of Rs.34,01,220/-. The case was selected for scrutiny\nand the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on\n16.08.2017, determining the total income at Rs.42,26,220/-.\n5.\nA search and seizure operation u/s.132

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

business. For the A.Y.2015-16, the assessee filed his\nreturn of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 23.11.2015, declaring a\ntotal income of Rs.34,01,220/-. The case was selected for scrutiny\nand the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on\n16.08.2017, determining the total income at Rs.42,26,220/-.\n5.\nA search and seizure operation u/s.132

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

business. For the A.Y.2015-16, the assessee filed his\nreturn of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 23.11.2015, declaring a\ntotal income of Rs.34,01,220/-. The case was selected for scrutiny\nand the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on\n16.08.2017, determining the total income at Rs.42,26,220/-.\n5.\nA search and seizure operation u/s.132

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

business. For the A.Y.2015-16, the assessee filed his\nreturn of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 23.11.2015, declaring a\ntotal income of Rs.34,01,220/-. The case was selected for scrutiny\nand the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on\n16.08.2017, determining the total income at Rs.42,26,220/-.\n5.\nA search and seizure operation u/s.132

FUTURE GAMING AND HOTEL SERVICES P LTD,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.950/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Future Gaming & Hotel Acit बनाम/ Services Private Limited Central Circle-2, 54, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. Vs. Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 029. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-9751-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Cit-Dr A/W Ms. Anitha (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

271(1)(c) of the Act. However, for the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB, the case must fall within the four corners of the definition of expression "undisclosed income" as defined u/s 271AAB itself. The assessee in this case is an individual and has earned income from partnership firm and interest income. The assessee has neither earned any business

MANGAL & MANGAL,TRICHY vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2207/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

271 (1) (c) of the Act, which directs that if income is concealed or inaccurate returns are filed, which are disallowed by the AO, the penalty shall be-three times the amount of tax Sought to be evaded, in the case of amounts disclosed during the course of search, the penalty amount is only ten percent of the undisclosed income

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. SARDARMAL KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(c) of the Act. However, for the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB, the case must fall within the four corners of the definition of expression "undisclosed income" as defined u/s 271AAB itself. The assessee in this case is an individual and has earned income from partnership firm and interest income. The assessee has neither earned any business

ACIT CENTRLA CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. SHANTILAL KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(c) of the Act. However, for the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB, the case must fall within the four corners of the definition of expression "undisclosed income" as defined u/s 271AAB itself. The assessee in this case is an individual and has earned income from partnership firm and interest income. The assessee has neither earned any business

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. KEWALCHAND KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(c) of the Act. However, for the levy of penalty u/s.271AAB, the case must fall within the four corners of the definition of expression "undisclosed income" as defined u/s 271AAB itself. The assessee in this case is an individual and has earned income from partnership firm and interest income. The assessee has neither earned any business

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Aggrieved, the assessee agitated the penalty before Ld. CIT(A). Appellate proceedings 5.1 During appellate proceedings, it transpired that the assessee’s quantum appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.04.2014. The assessee challenged the correctness of impugned penalty on various grounds. The assessee, inter-alia, submitted that

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Aggrieved, the assessee agitated the penalty before Ld. CIT(A). Appellate proceedings 5.1 During appellate proceedings, it transpired that the assessee’s quantum appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.04.2014. The assessee challenged the correctness of impugned penalty on various grounds. The assessee, inter-alia, submitted that

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Aggrieved, the assessee agitated the penalty before Ld. CIT(A). Appellate proceedings 5.1 During appellate proceedings, it transpired that the assessee’s quantum appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.04.2014. The assessee challenged the correctness of impugned penalty on various grounds. The assessee, inter-alia, submitted that

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Aggrieved, the assessee agitated the penalty before Ld. CIT(A). Appellate proceedings 5.1 During appellate proceedings, it transpired that the assessee’s quantum appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.04.2014. The assessee challenged the correctness of impugned penalty on various grounds. The assessee, inter-alia, submitted that

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Aggrieved, the assessee agitated the penalty before Ld. CIT(A). Appellate proceedings 5.1 During appellate proceedings, it transpired that the assessee’s quantum appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.04.2014. The assessee challenged the correctness of impugned penalty on various grounds. The assessee, inter-alia, submitted that

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Aggrieved, the assessee agitated the penalty before Ld. CIT(A). Appellate proceedings 5.1 During appellate proceedings, it transpired that the assessee’s quantum appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.04.2014. The assessee challenged the correctness of impugned penalty on various grounds. The assessee, inter-alia, submitted that

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Aggrieved, the assessee agitated the penalty before Ld. CIT(A). Appellate proceedings 5.1 During appellate proceedings, it transpired that the assessee’s quantum appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.04.2014. The assessee challenged the correctness of impugned penalty on various grounds. The assessee, inter-alia, submitted that