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

MOHAMED AKBAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-10(3), CHENNAI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymohamed Akbar, I.T.O., 2/2 1St St., Gf, Apt No. 2, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 10(3), Jamalia Perambur High Road, Chennai. Chennai-12 Pan No. Afepa 3815 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was noted by the Assessing officer as under: “4. As per Faceless penalty scheme, which was notified and published in official gazette on 12.01.2021, further penalty proceedings were to be carried by National Faceless Penalty Scheme. In the light of above notification, the office of undersigned issued and served the Show Cause

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\n\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\"\n\n4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence, doesn

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

191 proviso is applicable] that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under

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

191 proviso is applicable] that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under

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

191 proviso is applicable] that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under

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

191 proviso is applicable] that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under

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

191 proviso is applicable] that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under

S. ARAVIND,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

191 proviso is applicable] that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under

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

191 proviso is applicable] that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under

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

191 proviso is applicable] that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under

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

191 proviso is applicable] that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under

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

191 proviso is applicable] that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under

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

191 proviso is applicable] that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under

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

191 proviso is applicable] that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income that, both the conditions, (i) the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that there has been under having reason to believe that there has been under-assessment and (ii) assessment and (ii) his having reason to believe that such under