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

14. Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the\nappellant/revenue, says that the AO was not empowered to pass the penalty\norder under the provisions referred to hereinabove.\n14.1 Mr. Bhatia places reliance on Section 271E(2), which provides that the\npenalty imposable under sub-section (1) of the said section shall be imposed

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,

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the order

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the order

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

14 :: Following the Hon’ble SC decision in the case of CIT Vs SSA Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (SC) Hence, it is settled issue, upheld in several judicial decisions, that the AO is required to indicate the limb of the charge, while initiating the penalty proceedings and failure to do so vitiate the penalty proceedings and renders

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

14 :: Following the Hon’ble SC decision in the case of CIT Vs SSA Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (SC) Hence, it is settled issue, upheld in several judicial decisions, that the AO is required to indicate the limb of the charge, while initiating the penalty proceedings and failure to do so vitiate the penalty proceedings and renders

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the order

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23. Aggrieved by the order

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the order

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the order

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking-off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non- application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even

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

14 ::\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\nFollowing the Hon'ble SC decision in the case of CIT VS SSA Emerald Meadows [2016] 73\ntaxmann.com 241 (SC)\nHence, it is settled issue

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].

14, Chennai dated 30.03.2015 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by one day in filing the 2. appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay against which, the ld. DR has not objected. Since the assessee

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

14 ::\nFollowing the Hon'ble SC decision in the case of CIT VS SSA Emerald Meadows [2016] 73\ntaxmann.com 241 (SC)\nHence, it is settled issue, upheld in several judicial decisions, that the AO is\nrequired to indicate the limb of the charge, while initiating the penalty\nproceedings and failure to do so vitiate the penalty proceedings and renders\nthe

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”.

Section 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs.5,66,143/- was imposed. 06. Feeling aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ["CIT (A)"] against the penalty order. However, G.No.2 of the appeal of the assessee was dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2024 holding as under: ‘’7. In Ground No. 2, the appellant contended that the notice u/s