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)

u/s 271D expired on 30.09.2021. However, the penalty show-cause notice was issued by the Addl. CIT on 02.11.2021 and the penalty order was passed on 30.05.2022. It is therefore evident that the penalty order has not been passed within the statutory time limit which lapsed on 30.09.2021. In view of this reason, it is held that the penalty order

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)

u/s 271D expired on 30.09.2021. However, the penalty show-cause notice was issued by the Addl. CIT on 02.11.2021 and the penalty order was passed on 30.05.2022. It is therefore evident that the penalty order has not been passed within the statutory time limit which lapsed on 30.09.2021. In view of this reason, it is held that the penalty order

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)

u/s 271D expired on 30.09.2021. However, the penalty show-cause notice was issued by the Addl. CIT on 02.11.2021 and the penalty order was passed on 30.05.2022. It is therefore evident that the penalty order has not been passed within the statutory time limit which lapsed on 30.09.2021. In view of this reason, it is held that the penalty order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the\nCross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

26-4-2016. According to him\ntherefore, the order levying penalty u/s 271D is required to be passed\nbefore (a) the expiry of financial year in which proceedings had been\ninitiated or (b) six months from end of month in which action for\nimposition of penalty was initiated, whichever is later. According

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

271(l)(c). The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that certain additions have been made in the assessment proceedings. 10. The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that penalty cannot be levied merely because an amount taxed as income

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

271(l)(c). The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that certain additions have been made in the assessment proceedings. 10. The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that penalty cannot be levied merely because an amount taxed as income

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

26, held that when an assessee files a revised return\nshowing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of\nsuch higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka\nHigh Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing (P.) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2008]\n175 Taxman 551, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised\nreturn

ST.JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

10 :: referred to following case laws and therefore, prayed for quashing the same. 11. Per contra, the Ld.DR for the department has filed the written submissions, contents of which are reproduced as under: ITA No.3293/Chny/2024 – the Ld.DR’s written submissions Written Submission on the Validity of Penalty Notice under Section 270A 1. Brief Facts • A search under Section

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCOT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

10 :: referred to following case laws and therefore, prayed for quashing the same. 11. Per contra, the Ld.DR for the department has filed the written submissions, contents of which are reproduced as under: ITA No.3293/Chny/2024 – the Ld.DR’s written submissions Written Submission on the Validity of Penalty Notice under Section 270A 1. Brief Facts • A search under Section

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

26, held that when an assessee files a revised return\nshowing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of\nsuch higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka\nHigh Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing (P.) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2008]\n175 Taxman 551, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised\nreturn

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

26, held that when an assessee files a revised return\nshowing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of\nsuch higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka\nHigh Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing (P.) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2008]\n175 Taxman 551, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised\nreturn

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

26, held that when an assessee files a revised return\nshowing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of\nsuch higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka\nHigh Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing (P.) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2008]\n175 Taxman 551, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised\nreturn

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

26, held that when an assessee files a revised return\nshowing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of\nsuch higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka\nHigh Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing (P.) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2008]\n175 Taxman 551, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised\nreturn

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

26, held that when an assessee files a revised return\nshowing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of\nsuch higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka\nHigh Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing (P.) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2008]\n175 Taxman 551, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised\nreturn

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

26-09-2014. In the penalty order, the penalty has been 2 levied on the allegation that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed his income. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2.1 The Ld. AR, at the outset, drew our attention to legal ground

ST. JOSHEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

26,75,000/-\nwithout giving effect to the application of income in accordance with the\nprovisions of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect t of the\nvoluntary contributions of INR 24,00,000/- which the appellant is duly entitled\nto.\nGround of appeal #10: INCORRECT RATE OF PENALTY LEVY\nWithout prejudice to the above grounds

ST. JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

26,75,000/-\nwithout giving effect to the application of income in accordance with the\nprovisions of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect t of the\nvoluntary contributions of INR 24,00,000/- which the appellant is duly entitled\nto.\nGround of appeal #10: INCORRECT RATE OF PENALTY LEVY\nWithout prejudice to the above grounds

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 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) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

10. The ld. CIT(A), by considering the detailed submissions made by the assessee, confirmed the order of the penalty passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28.03.2012. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as under: 5. The Decision: 5.1 The learned AR argued that i. The issue involved is a legal issue. ii. only

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”.

26,46,770/- by disclosing additional income of Rs.19,98,843/- under the head "Income from other sources". Thereafter, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and the appellant had submitted his replies. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 28.09.2021 by accepting revised total income as disclosed in the return