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

R V R NAGESH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE VENGATTARAYALU RAJAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD - 22(4), TAMBARAM, TAMBARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was\na vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the\nassessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of\nmind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the\npenalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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

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 in the body

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

B.H.KOTHARI, REP BY L/H NINA B.KOTHARI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Estate Of (Late) Shri B.H. The Dcit, Kothari, V. Corporate Circle 4(2), Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Nina Chennai – 34. Kothari, No.18, Kothari Bagh, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Agjpk 7393K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

u/s. 271(1)© of the Act is a valid notice, and therefore, the ground raised by the assessee is not acceptable". In the instant case, the assessee never raised this issue neither before the AO nor before the CIT(A). Hence, the additional ground raised by the assessee is not acceptable. I.T.A. Nos.3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 9 (v) As per the decision

B.H.KOTHARI, REP BY L/H NINA B.KOTHARI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Estate Of (Late) Shri B.H. The Dcit, Kothari, V. Corporate Circle 4(2), Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Nina Chennai – 34. Kothari, No.18, Kothari Bagh, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Agjpk 7393K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

u/s. 271(1)© of the Act is a valid notice, and therefore, the ground raised by the assessee is not acceptable". In the instant case, the assessee never raised this issue neither before the AO nor before the CIT(A). Hence, the additional ground raised by the assessee is not acceptable. I.T.A. Nos.3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 9 (v) As per the decision

MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

183 ITR 59 (Kar.) \"Held, that, in view of the\nconclusion reached by the High Court that the amount in question was not\nassessable, there was no basis for the imposition of penalty. The cancellation of\npenalty was valid. [The Supreme Court has dismissed the special leave petition\nfiled by the Department against this judgment of the High Court

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being