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

273B of the Act gives the discretion to AO to drop penalty proceedings initiated under following sections, if assessee proves that there is reasonable cause for failure :- ‘Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 271, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271 CA, section 271D, section 27IE, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271

MANGAL & MANGAL,TRICHY vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2207/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 273B of the Act. We find that the Ld. CIT (A) had looked into irrelevant circumstances for deleting the levy of penalty in the instant case forgetting the fact that the levy of penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act is automatic in nature as per the plain reading of the provisions of the Act. Hence, we hold that

ANOTRA REALATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)- 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

u/s 271AAC are initiated separately.\n7. The Tax Computation Sheet and Demand Notice are enclosed.\n8. This order is passed with the prior approval of the Additional\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-1, Chennai as per section\n153D of the Income Tax Act.\nFrom the above, it is clear that this order is passed with the prior\napproval

V SEETHARAMAN,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.229/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16

273B of the Act while vitiating the levy of penalty in relation thereto mechanically. 5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order imposing penalty u/s 271B of the Act was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

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

u/s 273B). Levy 60% is statutory and mandatory in such cases. The notice issued clearly states the penalty and there were no limbs to be striked off. It is further submitted that the notice issued under section :- 14 -: 271AAB clearly mention the section of the penalty. Section 271AAB does not operate on multiple "limbs" as under section 271

AA522 KUNNATHUR VELAMPALAYAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,TIRUPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2) TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3133/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act for the reason that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. The A.O passed AA522 Kunnathur Velampalayam Primary Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. :- 3 -: the penalty order levying a penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.10,000/- for each of the default). Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before

M/S. MAHESHWARI BUILDERS,ADYAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-15(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 273B of the Act which is reproduced as under: 31[Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. 273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of 32[clause (b) of sub-section (1) of] 33[section 271

THAMIRA GREEN FARMS P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL.CIT CORPORATE RANGE 3 , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1845/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Thamira Green Farm P The Additional Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 1824/4, Gautham Corporate Range -3, Apartments, 1St Floor, Chennai. 18Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040. [Pan: Aacct-7926-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

penalty u/s 271 D of the Act. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 273B

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section 273B

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section 273B

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section 273B

PRAKASH CHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section 273B

JCIT, COIMBATORE vs. CHROMA PRINT INDIA PVT . LTD., COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No.2083/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Chroma Print India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Tds Range, Vs. P.B. No. 5316, 53, Ganesh Nagar, Coimbatore. G.N. Mills Post, Mtp Road, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaccc6021A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Veni Raj, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Dated 30.03.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In Its Appeal: “1. The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That No Penalty Is Leviable On The Non Deduction Of Tds On Payment Of Labour Charges Worth

u/s 271C, in so far as these defaults are concerned, is not called for and delete portion of the penalty pertaining to these defaults. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 5.1 The substance of the issue is whether the assessee is in default and liable for penal proceedings. Admittedly, the assessee has not deducted TDS on the expenditures as detailed hereinabove

GAURAV KUMAR GOENKA,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3375/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Gaurav Kumar Goenka, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 14/3B, 3F-2, 1St Street, Income Tax, East Abhiramapuram, Mylapore, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai 600 004. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Ahrpk3539J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. & Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 19.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds: “1. The Cit (Appeals) Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Presumption Of Enhancement Of Income In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Act Without Assigning Proper Reasons & Justification & Further Ought To Have Appreciated That The Restriction Of The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Would Not Amount To Enhancement Within The Ambit Of Section 250 Of The Act. 2. The Cit (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That In Any Event The Levy Of 2

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the presumption of enhancement of income in terms of Section 250 of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification and further ought to have appreciated that the restriction of the addition made by the Assessing Officer would not amount to enhancement within the ambit of Section

ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. S.ARUN KUMAR, RAJAPALAYAM

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

273B of I.T. Act 1961 and also failed to establish the business exigency during the course of penalty proceedings before the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax. 4.1 Ld. Departmental Representative had placed reliance on the Judgements of Hon'ble Chennai High Court in the case of Nandhi Dhall Mills reported in (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 97(Madras

BOOMI BOTTLING GAS,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

u/s. 273- B of the Act, which reads as under: Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases. ‘273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271

N.SANTHANAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.328/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mr. N.Santhanam Vs The Assistant Commissioner Old No.14, New No.12, Income Tax, Seethammal Colony Extension, Central Circle-1(2) 1St Cross Street, Teynampet, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 018. Pan: Axups 6533R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

271(1) (c) of the Act, which directs that if income is concealed or inaccurate returns are filed, which are disallowed by the AO, the penalty shall be - three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded. In the case of amounts disclosed during the course of search, the penalty amount is only ten percent of the undisclosed income

P.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13. Shri. P. Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, P-2, Hig Adyar Apartments, Non Corporate Ward 3(3) Kottur Gardens, Chennai. Circular Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Abbps 1019H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s. 44AB of the Act alongwith return of income on 31.03.2013. The reason cited by the assessee for delay in conducting the audit was as under:- ‘’ My accountant had suddenly resigned and left without notice during the month of August, 2012 (financial year 11-12/Asst. Year 12-13). I had to engage a new account and compile