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

270A(9) is quashed. Ground of appeal #4: PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271AAB IS OPTIONAL AND NOT MANDATORY The Ld. AO erred in levying penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act vide order dated 30- 03-2022 without considering the appellants submission that the levy of penalty under Section 271AAB of the Act is discretionary and not mandatory in nature

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. (Pan: Aamts 3888 G) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

270A of the Act dated 29-09-2021. In fact, the submission of the Ld. DR supports the appellant's contention that the impugned penalty notice was vague and it was only from the penalty order the Ld.AO has informed the appellant the limb under which the penalty has been imposed. The appellant has submitted various case laws, wherein

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aamts 3888 G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

270A of the Act dated 29-09-2021. In fact, the submission of the Ld. DR supports the appellant's contention that the impugned penalty notice was vague and it was only from the penalty order the Ld.AO has informed the appellant the limb under which the penalty has been imposed. The appellant has submitted various case laws, wherein

SIDDHARTH N MAHER,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

270A, 271AAB and 271AAC are not included, so penalty proceedings initiated under these sections can be dropped only if the law provides for the same in the section itself, which is provided by way of Explanation-1 of section 271(1)(c) and for under reporting u/s

MAHENDRA KANCHANLAL MAHER INDL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1 (3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

270A, 271AAB and 271AAC are not included, so penalty proceedings initiated under these sections can be dropped only if the law provides for the same in the section itself, which is provided by way of Explanation-1 of section 271(1)(c) and for under reporting u/s

NARENDRA C. MAHER INDL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

270A, 271AAB and 271AAC are not included, so penalty proceedings initiated under these sections can be dropped only if the law provides for the same in the section itself, which is provided by way of Explanation-1 of section 271(1)(c) and for under reporting u/s

M/S ENRIA 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

1) shall be equal to two hundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on under- reported income. 7.4.3 Therefore, provisions of section 270A (8) say that as far as a case where 'Misreporting of Income' is attracted, provisions of section 270A (6) do not apply. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that having given a finding that facts

M/S ENRICE 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

1) shall be equal to two hundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on under- reported income. 7.4.3 Therefore, provisions of section 270A (8) say that as far as a case where 'Misreporting of Income' is attracted, provisions of section 270A (6) do not apply. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that having given a finding that facts

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. GHISULAI KOTHARI, CHENNAI

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

penalty under the provisions of section 270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income, as defined u/s

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2024 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of V. 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate %&थ$कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri R. Clement Ramesh : Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 :

271(1)(c) of the Act & Sec.270A of the Act, and wordings therein both provisions are s wordings therein both provisions are similar and para materia to each imilar and para materia to each other. Although, the term ‘tax evasion’ has been redefined by way of other. Although, the term ‘tax evasion’ has been redefined by way of other. Although

ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

271(1) is concerned, the AO to record ‘satisfaction’ to levy penalty whereas in section 270A(1), the AO to give ‘direction’ for levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act.] In this case, the AO has not given any such direction while passing the assessment order on Arusuvai Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. :: 7 :: 31.03.2022, pursuant to which, he levied penalty

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

271(1)(c) that ceased to be applicable from AY 2017- 18 (being the subject AY) onwards, thus making it void-ab-initio. Thereafter, the Penalty Order in dispute too had been passed u/s 270A of the Act on 26.09.2019. 6. Accordingly, levy of Penalty u/s 270A of the Act is in violation of provisions of Section

ACIT CENTRLA CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. SHANTILAL KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

penalty under the provisions of section 270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income, as defined u/s

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. KEWALCHAND KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

penalty under the provisions of section 270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income, as defined u/s

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. SARDARMAL KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

penalty under the provisions of section 270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income, as defined u/s

KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

271(1) read with Section 263 of the Act, the Principal Commissioner might pass such order as the circumstances of the case might justify, which could include an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment. Directing fresh assessment would, in our view, include assessment of penalty. It cannot, therefore, be said that

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, 50A, Bhavaji Nagar, 2Nd Street, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Pan: Alipk 1937H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Orders Of Cit(A) Arise Out Of Orders Of Ao Imposing Penalties U/S.271(1)(C) / 270A / 271Aa Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16, 2017-18, To 2021-22. The Details Of The Respective Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - S. No.

u/s. Amount of penalty levied (Rs.) 1 1650/Chny/2025 2015-16 13.03.2025 30.09.2022 271(1)(c) 1,11,89,533 2 1651/Chny/2025 2017-18 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 62,74,154 3 1652/Chny/2025 2018-19 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 92,46,838 4 1653/Chny/2025 2019-20 12.03.2025 27.09.2022 270A 1,09,97,688 5 1654/Chny/2025 2020-21 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 1

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, 50A, Bhavaji Nagar, 2Nd Street, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. Pan: Alipk 1937H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca : 03.09.2025 : 21.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Orders Of Cit(A) Arise Out Of Orders Of Ao Imposing Penalties U/S.271(1)(C) / 270A / 271Aa Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16, 2017-18, To 2021-22. The Details Of The Respective Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - S. No.

u/s. Amount of penalty levied (Rs.) 1 1650/Chny/2025 2015-16 13.03.2025 30.09.2022 271(1)(c) 1,11,89,533 2 1651/Chny/2025 2017-18 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 62,74,154 3 1652/Chny/2025 2018-19 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 92,46,838 4 1653/Chny/2025 2019-20 12.03.2025 27.09.2022 270A 1,09,97,688 5 1654/Chny/2025 2020-21 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 1

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing Vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, 50A, Bhavaji Nagar, 2Nd Street, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. Pan: Alipk 1937H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca : 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Orders Of Cit(A) Arise Out Of Orders Of Ao Imposing Penalties U/S.271(1)(C) / 270A / 271Aa Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16, 2017-18, To 2021-22. The Details Of The Respective Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - S. No.

u/s. Amount of penalty levied (Rs.) 1 1650/Chny/2025 2015-16 13.03.2025 30.09.2022 271(1)(c) 1,11,89,533 2 1651/Chny/2025 2017-18 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 62,74,154 3 1652/Chny/2025 2018-19 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 92,46,838 4 1653/Chny/2025 2019-20 12.03.2025 27.09.2022 270A 1,09,97,688 5 1654/Chny/2025 2020-21 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 1