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)

132 of the Act on 30.09.2015. Consequently, the assessee filed his return of income on 15.10.2016 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 66,45,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 30.12.2017 after making addition towards unexplained interest paid/unexplained cash expenses. Against the same, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

132 of the Act on 30.09.2015. Consequently, the assessee filed his return of income on 15.10.2016 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 66,45,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 30.12.2017 after making addition towards unexplained interest paid/unexplained cash expenses. Against the same, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

132 of the Act on 30.09.2015. Consequently, the assessee filed his return of income on 15.10.2016 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 66,45,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 30.12.2017 after making addition towards unexplained interest paid/unexplained cash expenses. Against the same, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

4. Conclusion The Revenue submits that the penalty notice under Section 270A is valid. The 50% penalty aligns with under-reporting under Section 270A(7), and the failure to score out "misreporting" is a procedural lapse cured by Section 2928, The assessee suffered no prejudice, and the notice's intent is evident from the penalty rate and search findings

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

4. Conclusion The Revenue submits that the penalty notice under Section 270A is valid. The 50% penalty aligns with under-reporting under Section 270A(7), and the failure to score out "misreporting" is a procedural lapse cured by Section 2928, The assessee suffered no prejudice, and the notice's intent is evident from the penalty rate and search findings

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

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

4)\nb. Authority which is vested with the power to impose penalty shall be the authority to\ninitiate penalty under the Income Tax Act. (Para 4.2)\nc. No judicial or quasi-judicial function of any authority can be initiated by one authority\nand completed by another authority. (Para 4.3)\nd. Penalty u/s 271D gets initiated with the issue of notice

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

132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section

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

271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 271AAB of the Act\nFurther, the Ld.DR reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court\nin the case of CIT Vs Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) do not death with\nthe section 292B of the Act at all.\nFurther, this decision only

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

u/s 132 of the Act,\nunearthed unaccounted cash transactions, which warrants penalty of 60%.\nInvalidating the notice on technical issue, would defeat the intent of the\nlegislature.\ne) Holistic Interpretation of the Notice\nThe Ld. DR submitted that the notice must be read in conjunction with the\nassessment order, penalty order and search proceedings.\nf) Assessee's Conduct Warrants Penalty

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

132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section

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

132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section

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

132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section

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

132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section

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

132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHRI VAITHILINGAM, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee, for all the three years, stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.604/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.605/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.606/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Vaithilingam बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.3/335, South Street, Chennai. Telungankudikadu, Orathanad, / Vs. Thanjavur-614 625. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapv-5323-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.51/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.604/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.52/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.605/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.53/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.606/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

132(4) was valid evidence since the same was recorded on the basis of factual and specific with reference to the seized records. Reliance upon such evidence was proper and cogent in all respect. 4.14 The assessee assailed the allegations of Ld. AO and denied having any connection with any of the person. He further submitted that his name

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHRI VAITHILINGAM, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee, for all the three years, stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.604/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.605/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.606/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Vaithilingam बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.3/335, South Street, Chennai. Telungankudikadu, Orathanad, / Vs. Thanjavur-614 625. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapv-5323-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.51/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.604/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.52/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.605/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.53/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.606/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

132(4) was valid evidence since the same was recorded on the basis of factual and specific with reference to the seized records. Reliance upon such evidence was proper and cogent in all respect. 4.14 The assessee assailed the allegations of Ld. AO and denied having any connection with any of the person. He further submitted that his name