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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

penalty on you\nshould not be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act?” On perusal of the SCN\ndated 31.03.2015 [for all the captioned AYs], we note that both the faults\nspecified in Section

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

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

section 132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The\nAO imposed

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

section 132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed

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

section 132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed

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

section 132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed

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

section 132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed

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

section 132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed

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

section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With\ncalamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks\nno trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh\nKumar v. CIT [(2007) 2 SCC 181], in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval\nits earlier judgment in State ofOrissav. Dr. Binapani

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

Section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to whether assessee was guilty of concealing particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, the impugned penalty was invalid and same was to be set aside. The Ld. Sr. DR has referred to a decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case

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

c) Section 292B Cures the procedural lapse The Ld. DR has submitted that the omission of mentioning the specific limb of charge in the impugned penalty is a curable defect, under section 292B of the Act and the impugned penalty notice shall not be regarded as invalid. Our Submission As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, various High Courts

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

c) Section 292B Cures the procedural lapse The Ld. DR has submitted that the omission of mentioning the specific limb of charge in the impugned penalty is a curable defect, under section 292B of the Act and the impugned penalty notice shall not be regarded as invalid. Our Submission As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, various High Courts

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”.

u/s 271(1)(c) dated 04.01.2022 held as under: ‘’4. In view of the above facts, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income within the meaning of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the assessee’s case is fit for levy of penalty

DAKSHINAMOORTHY KUMARESAN,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c), then consequential notice under section 274\nissued by Assessing Officer to assessee to afford him opportunity of hearing, was\nspecifically a notice for penalty for concealment of particulars of income/undisclosed\nincome; such a notice complied with principles of natural justice and was a valid\nnotice under section 274 of the Act. He also relied

SRINIVASAN CHANDRASEKARA CHANDILYA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1478, 1479, 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486 & 1487/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 Srinivasan Chandrasekara Chandilya Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, K.V.Ranganathan & Co., Non-Corporate Circle-7(1), No.113/574, Ii Floor, Congress Chennai. Building, Tenampet, Chennai [Pan: Aaupc3096J]

u/s 271(1)(c) issued to the assesse. It is seen that the said notices were issued on 19.12.2019. As discussed herein above, the original assessment order was passed on 13.12.2019. Consequently, the penalty notice ought to have been issued on or before 13.12.2019. Any notice issued after 13.12.2019 becomes non est in the eyes

SRINIVASAN CHANDRASEKARA CHANDILYA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1478, 1479, 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486 & 1487/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 Srinivasan Chandrasekara Chandilya Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, K.V.Ranganathan & Co., Non-Corporate Circle-7(1), No.113/574, Ii Floor, Congress Chennai. Building, Tenampet, Chennai [Pan: Aaupc3096J]

u/s 271(1)(c) issued to the assesse. It is seen that the said notices were issued on 19.12.2019. As discussed herein above, the original assessment order was passed on 13.12.2019. Consequently, the penalty notice ought to have been issued on or before 13.12.2019. Any notice issued after 13.12.2019 becomes non est in the eyes

SRINIVASAN CHANDRASEKARA CHANDILYA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1478, 1479, 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486 & 1487/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 Srinivasan Chandrasekara Chandilya Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, K.V.Ranganathan & Co., Non-Corporate Circle-7(1), No.113/574, Ii Floor, Congress Chennai. Building, Tenampet, Chennai [Pan: Aaupc3096J]

u/s 271(1)(c) issued to the assesse. It is seen that the said notices were issued on 19.12.2019. As discussed herein above, the original assessment order was passed on 13.12.2019. Consequently, the penalty notice ought to have been issued on or before 13.12.2019. Any notice issued after 13.12.2019 becomes non est in the eyes

SRINIVASAN CHANDRASEKARA CHANDILYA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1478, 1479, 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1486 & 1487/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 Srinivasan Chandrasekara Chandilya Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, K.V.Ranganathan & Co., Non-Corporate Circle-7(1), No.113/574, Ii Floor, Congress Chennai. Building, Tenampet, Chennai [Pan: Aaupc3096J]

u/s 271(1)(c) issued to the assesse. It is seen that the said notices were issued on 19.12.2019. As discussed herein above, the original assessment order was passed on 13.12.2019. Consequently, the penalty notice ought to have been issued on or before 13.12.2019. Any notice issued after 13.12.2019 becomes non est in the eyes