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

142 taxmann.com 38 • Hon’ble ITAT – Chennai – ShriMelekandyPuthalathFarookVs ACIT – ITA No. 1890/CHNY/2024 dated 05-11-2024 • Hon’ble ITAT – Chennai – Enrica Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2024] 163 taxmann.com 105 • Hon’ble ITAT- Delhi – Jaina Marketing & Associates Vs DCIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 439 (Delhi - Trib.) ITA Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 (AYs 2018-19 & 2020-21) St. Joseph’s Educational Trust & ITA Nos.3295

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 of the Income tax Act, penalty proceedings are initiated or have to be initiated during the pendency of assessment

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

142 taxmann.com 38\n• Hon'ble ITAT - Chennai ShriMelekandyPuthalathFarookVs ACIT ITA No. 1890/CHNY/2024\ndated 05-11-2024\n• Hon'ble ITAT – Chennai – Enrica Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2024] 163 taxmann.com 105\n• Hon'ble ITAT- Delhi Jaina Marketing & Associates Vs DCIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 439\n(Delhi - Trib.)\n:: 14 ::\nITA Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024

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

142 taxmann.com 38\n•\nHon'ble ITAT - Chennai\nShriMelekandyPuthalathFarookVs ACIT ITA No. 1890/CHNY/2024\ndated 05-11-2024\n•\nHon'ble ITAT – Chennai – Enrica Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2024] 163 taxmann.com 105\n•\nHon'ble ITAT- Delhi\nJaina Marketing & Associates Vs DCIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 439\n(Delhi - Trib.)\n:: 14 ::\nFollowing the Hon'ble SC decision in the case

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”.

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”. 3. For the sake of convenience, it will be apposite to refer to the facts of the case. Shorn of all necessary details, the facts

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)

271 nor section 274 of the Act mandates issuance of any notice. This language use, when in comparison with Section 142(1), which is reproduced as under: “For the purpose of making an assessment under this Act, the Assessing Officer may serve on any person who has made a return... .......... a notice requiring him, a date to be therein specified

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)

271 nor section 274 of the Act mandates issuance of any notice. This language use, when in comparison with Section 142(1), which is reproduced as under: “For the purpose of making an assessment under this Act, the Assessing Officer may serve on any person who has made a return... .......... a notice requiring him, a date to be therein specified

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

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. o You are hereby required to appear before me at 11.30 A.M/P.M on 10-02-2010 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271

ANOTRA REALATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)- 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

u/s 271AAC are initiated separately.\n7. The Tax Computation Sheet and Demand Notice are enclosed.\n8. This order is passed with the prior approval of the Additional\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-1, Chennai as per section\n153D of the Income Tax Act.\nFrom the above, it is clear that this order is passed with the prior\napproval

SREE NAVALADIAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

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...". b) From the above language use, it is clear that the legislation did not mandate issuance of a notice for Penalty proceeding hearing. The logic being, u/s

SREE NAVALADIYAN FINANCE,SALEM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

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...". b) From the above language use, it is clear that the legislation did not mandate issuance of a notice for Penalty proceeding hearing. The logic being, u/s

SREENAVALADIAN FINANCE,SALEM vs. DCIT,CENTRALCIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

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...". b) From the above language use, it is clear that the legislation did not mandate issuance of a notice for Penalty proceeding hearing. The logic being, u/s

SREE NAVALADIYAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. DCIT, CENT CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

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...". b) From the above language use, it is clear that the legislation did not mandate issuance of a notice for Penalty proceeding hearing. The logic being, u/s

R.EASWARAMOORTHY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

M. NATESAN,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

RAMASAMY PALANISAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

K. SADASIVAM,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

M. VELUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

P. KARUNANITHI,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri