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

penalty proceedings\nu/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act by issuing show cause notice u/s.274\nr.w.s 271AAB of the Act on 27.03.2022.\n87.\nThe AO show caused the assessee requiring to explain as to\nwhy penalty u/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act should not be levied in\nrespect of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,42,15,889/-\nwhich formed part

D.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and the same would vitiate the penalty proceedings as per settled legal position. The Ld. AR also submitted that assessee furnished bona-fide explanation which has been rejected by revenue. However, the same would not lead to imposition of penalty in a mechanical manner. 2.3 The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, vehemently

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

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

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

natural justice would demand that the aggrieved party is given an opportunity of hearing to defend its case. It is only after the defense of the accused has been considered, the authorities could proceed with penal consequences. Had the imposition of penalty been automatic, such an opportunity would have no relevance and no opportunity would be required to be given

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

penalty proceedings\nu/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act by issuing show cause notice u/s.274\nr.w.s 271AAB of the Act on 27.03.2022.\n87.\nThe AO show caused the assessee requiring to explain as to\nwhy penalty u/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act should not be levied in\nrespect of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,42,15,889/-\nwhich formed part

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

penalty proceedings\nu/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act by issuing show cause notice u/s.274\nr.w.s 271AAB of the Act on 27.03.2022.\n86.\n87. The AO show caused the assessee requiring to explain as to\nwhy penalty u/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act should not be levied in\nrespect of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,42,15,889/-\nwhich formed part

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

penalty proceedings\nu/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act by issuing show cause notice u/s.274\nr.w.s 271AAB of the Act on 27.03.2022.\n87.\nThe AO show caused the assessee requiring to explain as to\nwhy penalty u/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act should not be levied in\nrespect of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,42,15,889/-\nwhich formed part

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

penalty proceedings\nu/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act by issuing show cause notice u/s.274\nr.w.s 271AAB of the Act on 27.03.2022.\n87.\nThe AO show caused the assessee requiring to explain as to\nwhy penalty u/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act should not be levied in\nrespect of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,42,15,889/-\nwhich formed part

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

penalty proceedings\nu/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act by issuing show cause notice u/s.274\nr.w.s 271AAB of the Act on 27.03.2022.\n87.\nThe AO show caused the assessee requiring to explain as to\nwhy penalty u/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act should not be levied in\nrespect of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,42,15,889/-\n, which formed part

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 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

SHANMUGAM ARIVAZHAGAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 22(6), TAMBARAM

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

penalty orders u/s 271(1)(b), the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeals invoking section 249(3) of the Act on account of the delay of 15 days in filing appeals. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that no opportunity was given by the ld.CIT(A) to address the issue

SHANMUGAM ARIVAZHAGAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 22(6), TAMBARAM

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

penalty orders u/s 271(1)(b), the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeals invoking section 249(3) of the Act on account of the delay of 15 days in filing appeals. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that no opportunity was given by the ld.CIT(A) to address the issue

SHANMUGAM ARIVAZHAGAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 22(6), TAMBARAM

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

penalty orders u/s 271(1)(b), the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeals invoking section 249(3) of the Act on account of the delay of 15 days in filing appeals. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that no opportunity was given by the ld.CIT(A) to address the issue