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

151 and section 153, in the case of\na person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of\naccount, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under\nsection 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer\nshall\n(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such\nperiod

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

151 and section 153, in the case of\na person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of\naccount, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under\nsection 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer\nshall\n(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such\nperiod

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

151 and section 153, in the case of\na person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of\naccount, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under\nsection 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer\nshall\n(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such\nperiod

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

151 and section 153, in the case of\na person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of\naccount, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under\nsection 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer\nshall\n(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such\nperiod

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

MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

151(ii) of\nthe Act, the consequential re-assessment order passed in terms of Section 147\nof the Act is to be considered as non-est in law and as a consequence, the PCIT\n1, Madurai could not have set aside such invalid / non-est re-assessment by\ninvoking revisionary jurisdiction in terms of Section

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, The Dcit, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Pammal, Chennai-600 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. The Dcit, Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Central Circle-1(2), 121, Shankar Nagar, Chennai. M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

151 & Section 153, the Assessing Officer will issue notice as per provisions of 153A. The intention of the parliament for separate Sections for issuing notice u/s 143(2) and Section 153A is specifically different ITA No.1103/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20) Bondalapati Shivaji Rao :: 27 :: and falls in particular circumstances mentioned in those particular Sections. It cannot be interlocated or inter related

MERCY EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2231/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mercy Education Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Sree Gokulam Towers, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Arcot Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aactm 6190M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026

271(1)(c) of the Act. In case the reassessment proceedings have been completed without proper jurisdiction entrusted upon the Assessing Officer, then the consequent penalty proceedings are also affected as basic issue of conferment of jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer is under challenge. Accordingly, we hold so.” 21. In the context of appeal against penalty order passed u/s.271D