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

259 (Mad) • Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case ofCIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar); and CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar). • Hon’ble Delhi High Court (Del) in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC [2022] 142 taxmann.com 38 • Hon’ble ITAT – Chennai – ShriMelekandyPuthalathFarookVs ACIT

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

259 (Mad) • Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case ofCIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar); and CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar). • Hon’ble Delhi High Court (Del) in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC [2022] 142 taxmann.com 38 • Hon’ble ITAT – Chennai – ShriMelekandyPuthalathFarookVs ACIT

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

section 271(1)(C) read with explanation (1). If no explanation is offered or explanation is found to be false the penalty will be exigible. 6. In view of the above, I deem it fit to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, as there is a concealment of income to the extent of………..” Apparently, the two limbs

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

259 (Mad)\n• Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case ofCIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013]\n359 ITR 565 (Kar); and CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar).\n• Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Del) in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC [2022] 142 taxmann.com 38\n• Hon'ble ITAT - Chennai

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

259 (Mad)\n•\nHon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case ofCIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013]\n359 ITR 565 (Kar); and CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar).\n•\nHon'ble Delhi High Court (Del) in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC [2022] 142 taxmann.com 38\n•\nHon'ble ITAT - Chennai

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”.

Section 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs.5,66,143/- was imposed. 06. Feeling aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ["CIT (A)"] against the penalty order. However, G.No.2 of the appeal of the assessee was dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2024 holding as under: ‘’7. In Ground No. 2, the appellant contended that the notice u/s

DAKSHINAMOORTHY KUMARESAN,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) dated 15.03.2024 was imposed for the\nconcealment of income which is not permissible in the light of above referred\njudgments of the Hon'ble High Courts. Hence, we are following the jurisdictional\nHigh Court order in the case of Babuji Jacob Vs. ITO (430 ITR 259) and quash\nthe penalty order dated 25.05.2023. We also find

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. SJ SURYAH, 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)

259 (Madras), wherein, in an identical case, penalty was levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act; and the assessee challenged, inter alia, the penalty imposed on the ground that the notice issued by AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proposed penalty was initiated for concealment of his particulars of income

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)

259 (Madras), wherein, in an identical case, penalty was levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act; and the assessee challenged, inter alia, the penalty imposed on the ground that the notice issued by AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proposed penalty was initiated for concealment of his particulars of income

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. SRI MAHESWARY GRANITES (P) LTD, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3054/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sri Maheswary Granites (P) Income Tax, Vs. Ltd., Central Circle – 2, Old No.115, New No.84, Coimbatore Bashyakarlu Road West, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore Pan: Aafcs 9118K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M.C.R. Mohan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

271(1)(c). The penalty is linked to the existence of "undisclosed income" detected in search. Therefore, the contention regarding non-striking off of limbs and alleged non-application of mind is misconceived and inapplicable in the context of section 271AAB. The assessee has filed reply to the penalty notice and the Assessing Officer has further duly recorded

SREENAVALADIAN FINANCE,SALEM vs. DCIT,CENTRALCIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

259 and finally, the CIT(A) held as under: ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 7.4.4 Hon 'ble courts have held in following cases that where both limbs are attracted, non-striking of one of the limbs in the penalty notice would not invalidate penalty and that minor defect in the notice issued cannot be the basis of deletion of penalty levied

SREE NAVALADIYAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. DCIT, CENT CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

259 and finally, the CIT(A) held as under: ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 7.4.4 Hon 'ble courts have held in following cases that where both limbs are attracted, non-striking of one of the limbs in the penalty notice would not invalidate penalty and that minor defect in the notice issued cannot be the basis of deletion of penalty levied

SREE NAVALADIAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

259 and finally, the CIT(A) held as under: ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 7.4.4 Hon 'ble courts have held in following cases that where both limbs are attracted, non-striking of one of the limbs in the penalty notice would not invalidate penalty and that minor defect in the notice issued cannot be the basis of deletion of penalty levied

SREE NAVALADIYAN FINANCE,SALEM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

259 and finally, the CIT(A) held as under: ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 7.4.4 Hon 'ble courts have held in following cases that where both limbs are attracted, non-striking of one of the limbs in the penalty notice would not invalidate penalty and that minor defect in the notice issued cannot be the basis of deletion of penalty levied

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore the\nimpugned notice is bad in law and therefore the penalty levied needs to\nbe deleted. The Ld.AR also relied on the following case laws:\n1. CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar)\n2. CIT, Bangalore Vs. SSA Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxmann.com