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

139\nabates and becomes non est. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under\nSection 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Whereas in the case on hand,\nthere was concealment by the petitioner while filing his first return of\nincome for the assessment year 2012-2013. In fact, the levying of penalty\nwas already dropped in view

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

139\nabates and becomes non est. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under\nSection 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Whereas in the case on hand,\nthere was concealment by the petitioner while filing his first return of\nincome for the assessment year 2012-2013. In fact, the levying of penalty\nwas already dropped in view

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

139\nabates and becomes non est. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under\nSection 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Whereas in the case on hand,\nthere was concealment by the petitioner while filing his first return of\nincome for the assessment year 2012-2013. In fact, the levying of penalty\nwas already dropped in view

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

139\nabates and becomes non est. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under\nSection 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Whereas in the case on hand,\nthere was concealment by the petitioner while filing his first return of\nincome for the assessment year 2012-2013. In fact, the levying of penalty\nwas already dropped in view

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 270A of the Act d) No prejudice Caused to the assessee The Ld.DR submitted that prejudice has been caused to the assessee, as the assessee was given opportunity of being heard. Our Submission When the impugned penalty notice is invalid, the entire proceedings gets vitiated

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 270A of the Act d) No prejudice Caused to the assessee The Ld.DR submitted that prejudice has been caused to the assessee, as the assessee was given opportunity of being heard. Our Submission When the impugned penalty notice is invalid, the entire proceedings gets vitiated

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 139”. From the above, it is clear that the legislation did not mandate issuance of a notice for Penalty proceeding hearing whereas for all other proceeding hearing, the legislation mandated issuance of a notice. The logic being, u/s 271

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

139(4A) of the\nAct. Without prejudice to the above, in case of decision to levy penalty the\nfollowing errors are to be taken into consideration and rectified:\ni) The amount of Rs.24,00,000/- has been added twice while computing the\nundisclosed income\nii) Penalty has been levied at the rate to 60% instead of the applicable 30%\n3.3

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

DAKSHINAMOORTHY KUMARESAN,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to whether assessee\nwas guilty of concealing particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate\nparticulars of income, the impugned penalty was invalid and same was to be\nset aside. The Ld. Sr. DR has referred to a decision of Hon'ble High Court of\nMadras in the case of Amtex

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].

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 Petro Products

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

FUTURE GAMING AND HOTEL SERVICES P LTD,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.950/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Future Gaming & Hotel Acit बनाम/ Services Private Limited Central Circle-2, 54, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. Vs. Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 029. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-9751-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Cit-Dr A/W Ms. Anitha (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

139 showing income of Rs. 2808270/-The assessee has disclosed income of Rs. 2179221/-during the year on account of undisclosed jewellery. Penalty u/s 271AAB is initiated." A perusal of the above reproduced relevant part of the assessment order reveals that the assessing officer has not mentioned about unearthing of any undisclosed income as defined u/s 271AAB

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 274 of the Act to issue a notice? 1. The language use of Section 274(1) is reproduced as under: "No order imposing penalty under this chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard...." From the above usage of language, the law has not envisaged initiation

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 274 of the Act to issue a notice? 1. The language use of Section 274(1) is reproduced as under: "No order imposing penalty under this chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard...." From the above usage of language, the law has not envisaged initiation

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

139(1) or by such notice. o have without reasonable cause failed to comply with notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. o have concealed the particulars of your income or ………………………………………furnish inaccurate particulars of such income

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

139 and the tax in accordance with the\nprovisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been paid on\nor before the end of the relevant previous year.\n(2) No penalty under the provisions of section 270A shall be imposed\nupon the assessee in respect of the income referred to in sub-section

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act?” On perusal of the SCN\ndated 31.03.2015 [for all the captioned AYs], we note that both the faults\nspecified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are given therein i.e. “have\nconcealed the particulars of his income” or “furnished inaccurate\nparticulars of such income”. In other words