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, 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, 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, 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

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

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

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act or not ? On perusal of the SCN dated 30.03.2005, we note that both the faults specified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are given therein i.e. “the assessee have concealed the particulars of his income” or “furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. In other words, the AO has put to notice

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act or not ? On perusal of the SCN dated 30.03.2005, we note that both the faults specified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are given therein i.e. “the assessee have concealed the particulars of his income” or “furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. In other words, the AO has put to notice

DAKSHINAMOORTHY KUMARESAN,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c), then consequential notice under section 274\nissued by Assessing Officer to assessee to afford him opportunity of hearing, was\nspecifically a notice for penalty for concealment of particulars of income/undisclosed\nincome; such a notice complied with principles of natural justice and was a valid\nnotice under section 274 of the Act. He also relied on the judgment

SELVARAJ ARPUTHARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-I,, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2029/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2030/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2031/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15

justice would be met if the additional grounds raised by the assessee are admitted. We have however also noted that vide grounds of appeal no.(g) for ITA No.2030 and 2031, the assessee had contested that the impugned penalty order dated 25.10.2021 is partly time barred qua the understatement of the income in respect of amounts of Rs.49

SELVARAJ ARPUTHARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-I,, COIMBAOTORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2029/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2030/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2031/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15

justice would be met if the additional grounds raised by the assessee are admitted. We have however also noted that vide grounds of appeal no.(g) for ITA No.2030 and 2031, the assessee had contested that the impugned penalty order dated 25.10.2021 is partly time barred qua the understatement of the income in respect of amounts of Rs.49

SELVARAJ ARPUTHARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-I, , COIMBAOTORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2029/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2030/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2031/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15

justice would be met if the additional grounds raised by the assessee are admitted. We have however also noted that vide grounds of appeal no.(g) for ITA No.2030 and 2031, the assessee had contested that the impugned penalty order dated 25.10.2021 is partly time barred qua the understatement of the income in respect of amounts of Rs.49

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2024 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of V. 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate %&थ$कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri R. Clement Ramesh : Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 :

271(1)(c) of the Act & Sec.270A of the Act, and wordings therein both provisions are s wordings therein both provisions are similar and para materia to each imilar and para materia to each other. Although, the term ‘tax evasion’ has been redefined by way of other. Although, the term ‘tax evasion’ has been redefined by way of other. Although

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

natural justice would be nullity in law 12. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Mangal & Mangal, is engaged in the business of trading in gold jewellery, silver articles, electronics, home appliances and metal wares. A search was conducted in the business premises

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law. [Para 63] • The penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings. The proceedings for imposition of penalty, though emanate from proceedings