ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s 271D/E, he AO had no satisfaction to Initiate any penalty. 3.1 In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in 98 ITD 200. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below: "21. Another factor that deserves consideration is the requirement of recording of satisfaction in the course

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s 271D/E, he AO had no satisfaction to Initiate any penalty. 3.1 In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in 98 ITD 200. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below: "21. Another factor that deserves consideration is the requirement of recording of satisfaction in the course

DAKSHINAMOORTHY KUMARESAN,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

124 taxmann.com 363\n(Madras) and prayed for deletion of penalty.\n5.\nOn the other hand, Id. Departmental Representative submitted that when\nAssessing Officer had recorded in assessment order particulars of concealed\nincome/undisclosed income of assessee and on that basis initiated penalty\nproceeding under section 271(1)(c), then consequential notice under section 274\nissued by Assessing Officer to assessee

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

124, 125 & 126/Mds/ 2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner M/s. Meenakshi Ammal Trust, of Income Tax, Vs. No.61, Old No. 641, Central Circle 2(1) Ramasamy Salai, Investigation Wing, K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAATM 4676Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

124, 125 & 126/Mds/ 2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner M/s. Meenakshi Ammal Trust, of Income Tax, Vs. No.61, Old No. 641, Central Circle 2(1) Ramasamy Salai, Investigation Wing, K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAATM 4676Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SRI MUTHUKUMARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

124, 125 & 126/Mds/ 2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner M/s. Meenakshi Ammal Trust, of Income Tax, Vs. No.61, Old No. 641, Central Circle 2(1) Ramasamy Salai, Investigation Wing, K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAATM 4676Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SRI MUTHUKUMARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

124, 125 & 126/Mds/ 2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner M/s. Meenakshi Ammal Trust, of Income Tax, Vs. No.61, Old No. 641, Central Circle 2(1) Ramasamy Salai, Investigation Wing, K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAATM 4676Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SRI MUTHUKUMARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

124, 125 & 126/Mds/ 2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner M/s. Meenakshi Ammal Trust, of Income Tax, Vs. No.61, Old No. 641, Central Circle 2(1) Ramasamy Salai, Investigation Wing, K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAATM 4676Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ

DR.S.F.V.SELVARAJ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.868 & 869/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Dr. (Late) S.F.V. Selvaraj, The Deputy Commissioner Of Rep. By L/H Dr. Kamala Selvaraj, Vs. Income Tax, Dr. Deepu Rajkamal Selvaraj, Dr. Priya Central Circle 2(5), Selvaraj, No. 22, 5Th Street, Dr. Chennai. Thirumurthy Nagar, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps5404L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 08.02.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Quantum Addition Of Unexplained Cash Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271Aaa Of The Act. Against Quantum Addition, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

124 relates to wealth tax assessment order dated 30.01.2015 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2011-12, wherein, against the notice under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act dated 12.11.2013, the assessee filed his return on 19.02.2014, much after the search operation carried out on 24.11.2011 and cash seized of ₹.3,45,45,000/-. It is very clear

DR.S.F.V.SELVARAJ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.868 & 869/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Dr. (Late) S.F.V. Selvaraj, The Deputy Commissioner Of Rep. By L/H Dr. Kamala Selvaraj, Vs. Income Tax, Dr. Deepu Rajkamal Selvaraj, Dr. Priya Central Circle 2(5), Selvaraj, No. 22, 5Th Street, Dr. Chennai. Thirumurthy Nagar, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps5404L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 08.02.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Quantum Addition Of Unexplained Cash Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271Aaa Of The Act. Against Quantum Addition, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

124 relates to wealth tax assessment order dated 30.01.2015 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2011-12, wherein, against the notice under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act dated 12.11.2013, the assessee filed his return on 19.02.2014, much after the search operation carried out on 24.11.2011 and cash seized of ₹.3,45,45,000/-. It is very clear

M.ARUN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-2(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Chny/2021 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 271 would apply to the case of the assessee which provide for penalty if the assessee is not able to substantiate the claim made. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR, at the outset, drew our attention to legal ground Nos. 1 & 2 in which the assessee submit that the show-cause notice

PANJURAJAN GANESAN,,SIVAKASI vs. DCIT, CC - 2,, MADURAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.74A, Velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Abypg3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for ‘have concealed the particulars of your income or ….furnished inaccurate particulars of such income’. The ld. AR further contended that order imposing penalty has to be made only on ground of which penalty proceedings has been initiated. The ld. counsel further contended that ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars

ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

124 taxmann.com 249 (SC), though passed in the context of levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. But the requirement of law as given in section 271(1) & 270A(1) of the Act is noted to be pari-materia. As far as Section 271(1) is concerned, the AO to record ‘satisfaction’ to levy penalty whereas in section

DCIT, CC-3 (2),, CHENNAI vs. VICOANS INFRSTRUCTURE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3170/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 V. The Dy. Commissioner Of- M/S.Vicoans Infrastructure Income Tax, Environmental Engineering Corporate Circle-3(2), Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. No.39, 1St Cross Street, West Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. [Pan:Aaccv 4087 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 271. The assessee cannot plead that it did not know for what reasonthe penalty proceeding was initiated and whether it was for 'concealment' or for 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return'. The assessee knew from the beginning thatthe assessee's case was re-opened u/s 147 only with the view to scrutinize the transaction theassessee carried

PRADEEP DAYANAND KOTHARI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 V. Shri Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, The Dy. Commissioner – Kothari Buildings, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 114, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Corporate Circle-4(2), Chennai-600 034. Chennai.

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 31.03.2013 for both AY 2006-07 & ITA Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 (AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08) Pradeep Dayanand Kothari :: 3 :: AY 2007-08 by virtue which the AO gave notice to the assessee ‘as to why’ the penalty should not be levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act or not? On perusal

PRADEEP DAYANAND KOTHARI ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, TAX CORPORATE CRICLE 4(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 V. Shri Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, The Dy. Commissioner – Kothari Buildings, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 114, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Corporate Circle-4(2), Chennai-600 034. Chennai.

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 31.03.2013 for both AY 2006-07 & ITA Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 (AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08) Pradeep Dayanand Kothari :: 3 :: AY 2007-08 by virtue which the AO gave notice to the assessee ‘as to why’ the penalty should not be levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act or not? On perusal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. S. DEEPALAKSHMI, PANRUTI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:991/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Ms. S. Deepalakshmi, Income Tax, Vs. No.190, Annai Indira Gandhi Central Circle -2(2), Salai, Chennai. Panruti – 607 108. Pan: Awtpd 8317Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Smt. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""यथ"क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai - 19 Dated 13.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore For The Assessment Year 2016-17 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 31.12.2018. 2. The Sole Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied By Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.51,18,200/- For The Reason That There Is No Specific Charge Framed While Initiating Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act I.E., Whether Assessee Has Concealed The Particulars Of Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. While completing the assessment, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.51,80,200/- being 100% of the tax on the alleged concealed trading income. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. Before CIT(A), the assessee made submission that the levy

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being