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 of the Income tax Act, penalty proceedings are initiated or have to be initiated during the pendency of assessment and not subsequent to an assessment. Though the assessment proceeding and penalty proceeding are two independent proceeding in the act, penalty proceedings for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars are initiated during the course of assessment and could be concluded even

PANJURAJAN GANESAN,,SIVAKASI vs. DCIT, CC - 2,, MADURAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.74A, Velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Abypg3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for ‘have concealed the particulars of your income or ….furnished inaccurate particulars of such income’. The ld. AR further contended that order imposing penalty has to be made only on ground of which penalty proceedings has been initiated. The ld. counsel further contended that ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars

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

u/s 271AAC are initiated separately. 7. The Tax Computation Sheet and Demand Notice are enclosed. 8. This order is passed with the prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-1, Chennai as per section 153D of the Income Tax Act. From the above, it is clear that this order is passed with the prior approval

KEB HANA BANK,CHENNAI vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Reporting Entity are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.440, 441 & 442/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Keb Hana Bank, Vs. The Joint Director Of 4Th Floor, Bannari Amman Towers, Income Tax, Dr.R.K. Salai, Mylapore, Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aadck4261D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Va Mehta, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, All Dated 09.02.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Passed Under Section 271Faa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Levying Penalty Of ₹.50,000/- For Each Calendar Years 2017, 2018 & 2019. 2

u/s 271FAA was introduced to ensure due compliance to this 'Due diligence' requirement considering the seriousness of such reporting requirement as per the tax treaties with various countries on exchange of information. The captioned assessee in appeal, a foreign bank was found, under reporting of certain reportable transactions of three Calendar years 2018, 2019 and 2020. This was detected during

KEB HANA BANK,CHENNAI vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Reporting Entity are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.440, 441 & 442/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Keb Hana Bank, Vs. The Joint Director Of 4Th Floor, Bannari Amman Towers, Income Tax, Dr.R.K. Salai, Mylapore, Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aadck4261D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Va Mehta, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, All Dated 09.02.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Passed Under Section 271Faa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Levying Penalty Of ₹.50,000/- For Each Calendar Years 2017, 2018 & 2019. 2

u/s 271FAA was introduced to ensure due compliance to this 'Due diligence' requirement considering the seriousness of such reporting requirement as per the tax treaties with various countries on exchange of information. The captioned assessee in appeal, a foreign bank was found, under reporting of certain reportable transactions of three Calendar years 2018, 2019 and 2020. This was detected during

KEB HANA BANK,CHENNAI vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Reporting Entity are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.440, 441 & 442/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Keb Hana Bank, Vs. The Joint Director Of 4Th Floor, Bannari Amman Towers, Income Tax, Dr.R.K. Salai, Mylapore, Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aadck4261D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Va Mehta, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, All Dated 09.02.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Passed Under Section 271Faa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Levying Penalty Of ₹.50,000/- For Each Calendar Years 2017, 2018 & 2019. 2

u/s 271FAA was introduced to ensure due compliance to this 'Due diligence' requirement considering the seriousness of such reporting requirement as per the tax treaties with various countries on exchange of information. The captioned assessee in appeal, a foreign bank was found, under reporting of certain reportable transactions of three Calendar years 2018, 2019 and 2020. This was detected during

P. KALAISELVI ,POLUR vs. ACIT , VELLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.984/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ms.Palani Kalai Selvi, The Asst. Commissioner – No.2A, Old No.7, Of Income Tax, Abdul Sukkur St., Circle-1, Polur-606 608. Vellore. [Pan: Bcapk 5385 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2023

156 has been issued in Form 7. On these grounds and on such other grounds as may be put forth at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the penalty proceedings u/s 271B and the consequent levy of penalty of Rs.150000 thereunder be cancelled and justice rendered. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

DAKSHINAMOORTHY KUMARESAN,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

u/s 147 of the Act dated 25.05.2023, the Id. Assessing Officer stated that penalty proceedings u/s.271 (1) (c) of the Act is initiated separately as it is evidenced that the assessee has 'concealed his particulars of income' by not filing his return of income voluntarily for A.Y. 2016- 2017 as required u/s.139(1) of the Act. 7. Penalty is imposed

T.L. SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-14,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2634/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Asst. Commissioner Of New No.13, Old No.1, Vs. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non Corporate Circle-14, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 033. Pan: Aepps 6766J

Section 50C of the Act at Rs. 2,43,68,627/-. The A.O. levied penalty of Rs. 4,04,156/- u/s 271

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

K. KATHIRVEL,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. NALLUSAMY,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

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

K. BASKAR,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

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

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