DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

19, Chennai, all dated 03.05.2023 relevant the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 deleting penalty levied by appropriate officer under section 271D as well as section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. Nos.785 to 788/Chny/23 & C.O. Nos. 40-43/Chny/23 Since facts and grounds are identical, we take up the appeal of assessment

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

19, Chennai, all dated 03.05.2023 relevant the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 deleting penalty levied by appropriate officer under section 271D as well as section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. Nos.785 to 788/Chny/23 & C.O. Nos. 40-43/Chny/23 Since facts and grounds are identical, we take up the appeal of assessment

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

19, Chennai, all dated 03.05.2023 relevant the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 deleting penalty levied by appropriate officer under section 271D as well as section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. Nos.785 to 788/Chny/23 & C.O. Nos. 40-43/Chny/23 Since facts and grounds are identical, we take up the appeal of assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the\nCross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 and no\nsatisfaction was recorded to initiate penalty proceedings under Section\n271D.\n11. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by\nthe decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City\n(supra). The notice issued under Section 271E and the proceedings in\npursuance thereto

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 270A of the Act d) No prejudice Caused to the assessee The Ld.DR submitted that prejudice has been caused to the assessee, as the assessee was given opportunity of being heard. Our Submission When the impugned penalty notice is invalid, the entire proceedings gets vitiated

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCOT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 270A of the Act d) No prejudice Caused to the assessee The Ld.DR submitted that prejudice has been caused to the assessee, as the assessee was given opportunity of being heard. Our Submission When the impugned penalty notice is invalid, the entire proceedings gets vitiated

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

19,500/- and Rs.50,00,000/-, respectively. He further\nstated that the said payments were effected out of an advance of\nRs.1,00,00,000/-, which had been received in cash towards the\nproposed sale of immovable property.\n84.\nThe AO was of the view that although the assessee had\nsought to attribute payments aggregating to Rs.69,19,500/-\ntowards

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge 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. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge 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. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

19,500/- and Rs.50,00,000/-, respectively. He further\nstated that the said payments were effected out of an advance of\nRs.1,00,00,000/-, which had been received in cash towards the\nproposed sale of immovable property.\n84.\nThe AO was of the view that although the assessee had\nsought to attribute payments aggregating to Rs.69,19,500/-\ntowards

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

19,500/- and Rs.50,00,000/-, respectively. He further\nstated that the said payments were effected out of an advance of\nRs.1,00,00,000/-, which had been received in cash towards the\nproposed sale of immovable property.\n84.\nThe AO was of the view that although the assessee had\nsought to attribute payments aggregating to Rs.69,19,500/-\ntowards

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

19,500/- and Rs.50,00,000/-, respectively. He further\nstated that the said payments were effected out of an advance of\nRs.1,00,00,000/-, which had been received in cash towards the\nproposed sale of immovable property.\n84.\nThe AO was of the view that although the assessee had\nsought to attribute payments aggregating to Rs.69,19,500/-\ntowards

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

19,500/- and Rs.50,00,000/-, respectively. He further\nstated that the said payments were effected out of an advance of\nRs.1,00,00,000/-, which had been received in cash towards the\nproposed sale of immovable property.\n84. The AO was of the view that although the assessee had\nsought to attribute payments aggregating to Rs.69,19,500/-\ntowards

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

19,500/- and Rs.50,00,000/-, respectively. He further\nstated that the said payments were effected out of an advance of\nRs.1,00,00,000/-, which had been received in cash towards the\nproposed sale of immovable property.\n84.\nThe AO was of the view that although the assessee had\nsought to attribute payments aggregating to Rs.69,19,500/-\ntowards

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

19-05-2023 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.10,36,114/- for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned order has been passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore

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

19 ::\nimpugned notice of penalty issued by the AO is vague, [i.e. it doesn't spell\nout the specific fault for which the assessee has been called upon to\ndefend the proposed penalty viz., `underreporting\nof\nincome'/'misreporting of income'] it is bad in law. According to us, an\nomnibus SCN, betrays application of mind and vitiates the issuance

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

19 ::\nimpugned notice of penalty issued by the AO is vague, [i.e. it doesn't spell\nout the specific fault for which the assessee has been called upon to\ndefend the proposed penalty viz., `underreporting\nof\nincome'/'misreporting of income'] it is bad in law. According to us, an\nomnibus SCN, betrays application of mind and vitiates the issuance

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s 271D/E, he AO had no satisfaction to Initiate any penalty. 3.1 In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in 98 ITD 200. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below: "21. Another factor that deserves consideration is the requirement of recording of satisfaction in the course

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s 271D/E, he AO had no satisfaction to Initiate any penalty. 3.1 In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in 98 ITD 200. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below: "21. Another factor that deserves consideration is the requirement of recording of satisfaction in the course