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

13. A plain reading of Sub-Section 2 of Section 274, as it was, goes to\nshow that before the said Act of 1975 was introduced, the Assessing\nOfficer had jurisdiction to impose penalty not exceeding a sum of Rs.\n1000/-. A case involving penalty imposable exceeding a sum of Rs.1000/-\nwas required to be referred

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,

section 271(1)(c) of the Act requires the AO to form\nan opinion regarding the concealment of income or furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income during the course of the assessment\nproceedings. The notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is typically\nissued if the AO is satisfied during the course of assessment that the\ntaxpayer

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act requires the AO to form\nan opinion regarding the concealment of income or furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income during the course of the assessment\nproceedings. The notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is typically\nissued if the AO is satisfied during the course of assessment that the\ntaxpayer

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act requires the AO to form\nan opinion regarding the concealment of income or furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income during the course of the assessment\nproceedings. The notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is typically\nissued if the AO is satisfied during the course of assessment that the\ntaxpayer

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act requires the AO to form\nan opinion regarding the concealment of income or furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income during the course of the assessment\nproceedings. The notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is typically\nissued if the AO is satisfied during the course of assessment that the\ntaxpayer

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act requires the AO to form\nan opinion regarding the concealment of income or furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income during the course of the assessment\nproceedings. The notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is typically\nissued if the AO is satisfied during the course of assessment that the\ntaxpayer

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act requires the AO to form\nan opinion regarding the concealment of income or furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income during the course of the assessment\nproceedings. The notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is typically\nissued if the AO is satisfied during the course of assessment that the\ntaxpayer

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

13 :: Your appellant humbly wishes to submit the rejoinder to the counter submissions made by the department on 03-04-2025 as under: The main issue in the appeal is with regard to the validity of the impugned penalty notice issued under section 270A of the Act dated 29-09-2021, which has been issued without mentioning the specific limb

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

13 :: Your appellant humbly wishes to submit the rejoinder to the counter submissions made by the department on 03-04-2025 as under: The main issue in the appeal is with regard to the validity of the impugned penalty notice issued under section 270A of the Act dated 29-09-2021, which has been issued without mentioning the specific limb

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

section 271(1)(C) read with explanation (1). If no explanation is offered or explanation is found to be false the penalty will be exigible. 6. In view of the above, I deem it fit to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, as there is a concealment of income to the extent of………..” Apparently, the two limbs

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

13 ::\nITA Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024\n(AYs 2018-19 & 2020-21)\nSt. Joseph's Educational Trust\n&\nITA Nos.3295 to 3297/Chny/2024\n(AYS 2018-19 to 2020-21)\nSt. Joseph's Institute of Science &\nTechnology Trust\nYour appellant humbly wishes to submit the rejoinder to the counter\nsubmissions made by the department on 03-04-2025 as under:\nThe main issue

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

13 ::\nYour appellant humbly wishes to submit the rejoinder to the counter\nsubmissions made by the department on 03-04-2025 as under:\nThe main issue in the appeal is with regard to the validity of the\nimpugned penalty notice issued under section 270A of the Act dated\n29-09-2021, which has been issued without mentioning the specific\nlimb

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Hence, respectfully following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) and the other decisions of different High Courts, we held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee was not valid

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].

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 a different view was taken by the assessee and the department and iii. relied on the decision of Reliance