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

8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb\nof Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-\nsection (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars,\nthe mere reference to the word \"misreporting\" by the Respondents in the\npenalty order to deny immunity

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

8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb\nof Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-\nsection (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars,\nthe mere reference to the word \"misreporting\" by the Respondents in the\npenalty order to deny immunity

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

8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb\nof Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-\nsection (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars,\nthe mere reference to the word \"misreporting\" by the Respondents in the\npenalty order to deny immunity

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

8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb\nof Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-\nsection (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars,\nthe mere reference to the word "misreporting" by the Respondents in the\npenalty order to deny immunity

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

270A(9) is quashed.\nGround of appeal #4: PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271AAB IS\nOPTIONAL AND NOT MANDATORY\nThe Ld. AO erred in levying penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act vide order dated 30-\n03-2022 without considering the appellants submission that the levy of penalty\nunder Section 271AAB of the Act is discretionary and not mandatory in nature

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

8) imposes a 200% penalty for misreporting under Section 270A(3). • The AD levied a 50% penalty, which unequivocally signal with under- reporting. Had the AO intended to penalize for misreporting (e.g., suppression of facts or falsification), the penalty would have been 200%. The quantum of penalty itself clarifies the limb under which it was imposed. • The omission to score

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

8) imposes a 200% penalty for misreporting under Section 270A(3). • The AD levied a 50% penalty, which unequivocally signal with under- reporting. Had the AO intended to penalize for misreporting (e.g., suppression of facts or falsification), the penalty would have been 200%. The quantum of penalty itself clarifies the limb under which it was imposed. • The omission to score

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

270A(9) is quashed.\nGround of appeal #4: PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271AAB IS\nOPTIONAL AND NOT MANDATORY\nThe Ld. AO erred in levying penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act vide order dated 30-\n03-2022 without considering the appellants submission that the levy of penalty\nunder Section 271AAB of the Act is discretionary and not mandatory in nature

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

u/s 132(4) for the year Rs.15,79,00,000/- and levied 200% of penalty on such tax computed. The AO is directed to compute tax payable on '*under reported income' for the year u/ s 270A( 10) (c) before levying penalty as per Sec. 270A(8), Needless to say that the appellant gets relief to the extent of excess

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

u/s 132(4) for the year Rs.15,79,00,000/- and levied 200% of penalty on such tax computed. The AO is directed to compute tax payable on '*under reported income' for the year u/ s 270A( 10) (c) before levying penalty as per Sec. 270A(8), Needless to say that the appellant gets relief to the extent of excess

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 :

270A(9) of the Act, which deals (9) of the Act, which deals with claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence and with claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence and with claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence and recording of any false entry in the books of accounts. The AO has arrived recording

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

u/s 270A, by way of clause(a) of sub-section (6). Thus, it 271AAB and 271AAC. The words 'may' is used in these sections to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to facilitate the assessee to submit its case, if it does not fall under the criteria mentioned in the respective provisions. Hence, if penalty is initiated

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

u/s 270A, by way of clause(a) of sub-section (6). Thus, it 271AAB and 271AAC. The words 'may' is used in these sections to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to facilitate the assessee to submit its case, if it does not fall under the criteria mentioned in the respective provisions. Hence, if penalty is initiated

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

u/s 270A, by way of clause(a) of sub-section (6). Thus, it 271AAB and 271AAC. The words 'may' is used in these sections to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to facilitate the assessee to submit its case, if it does not fall under the criteria mentioned in the respective provisions. Hence, if penalty is initiated

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

8. So far as issue of levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act whether is mandatory or not is concerned, the issue has been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of SEL Textiles Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 695 (Chd.) of 2018, dated 18-4-2019]. The Tribunal

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

8) clearly states, \"Notwithstanding\nanything contained in sub-section (6) or sub-section (7), where under-reported\nincome is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty\nreferred to in sub-section (1) shall be equal to two hundred percent of the amount of\ntax payable on under-reported income.\"\n7. For these grounds and any other

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

MELAKANDY PUTHALATH FAROOK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1890/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Melekandy Puthalath Farook Acit बनाम/ Faraz No.9 Sbi Colony, Corporate Circle-2(1) Vs. Sastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapf-2644-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr

u/s 270A(9)(a). Finally, Ld. AO imposed penalty of Rs.54.10 Lacs. 6. During appellate proceedings, the assessee, inter-alia, submitted that penalty was not mandatory. The two charges viz. under reporting of income and misreporting of income are two different charges. Both expressions could not be used interchangeably. The Ld. AO should arrive at clear charge before levy