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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 270A of the Act d) No prejudice Caused to the assessee The Ld.DR submitted that prejudice has been caused to the assessee, as the assessee was given opportunity of being heard. Our Submission When the impugned penalty notice is invalid, the entire proceedings gets vitiated

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271(1)( c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. " In view of aforesaid facts and findings given thereon and respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case (referred to supra

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271(1)( c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. " In view of aforesaid facts and findings given thereon and respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case (referred to supra

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271(1)( c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. " In view of aforesaid facts and findings given thereon and respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case (referred to supra

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271(1)( c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. " In view of aforesaid facts and findings given thereon and respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case (referred to supra

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

1) of the Act dated 29-09-2021, which has been\nissued for the search initiated on 07-11-2019, instead of section 271AAB(1A)\nof the Act and also without mentioning the specific limb is valid or not.\nIn fact, the submission of the Ld. DR supports the appellant's contention that\nthe impugned penalty notice was vague

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

1) of the Act dated 29-09-2021, which has been\nissued for the search initiated on 07-11-2019, instead of section 271AAB(1A)\nof the Act and also without mentioning the specific limb is valid or not.\nIn fact, the submission of the Ld. DR supports the appellant's contention that\nthe impugned penalty notice was vague

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

275 (1) (c). 12. In that view of the matter, the order of the CIT (A) which has been affirmed by the impugned order of the ITAT does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 13. No substantial question of law arises for determination. 14. The appeal is dismissed. 6. In the light of the aforesaid facts

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

275 (1) (c). 12. In that view of the matter, the order of the CIT (A) which has been affirmed by the impugned order of the ITAT does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 13. No substantial question of law arises for determination. 14. The appeal is dismissed. 6. In the light of the aforesaid facts

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

275 (1) (c). 12. In that view of the matter, the order of the CIT (A) which has been affirmed by the impugned order of the ITAT does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 13. No substantial question of law arises for determination. 14. The appeal is dismissed. 6. In the light of the aforesaid facts

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

SELVARAJ ARPUTHARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-I,, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2029/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2030/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2031/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15

271(1)(c) qua addition of Rs.49,51,362/- and Rs.1,87,75,583/- for AY-2013-14 and AY 2014-15 was passed on 25.10.2021. Accordingly, it is abundantly clear that the penalty order dated 25.10.2021 has been hit by limitation prescribed in section 275(1)(a) and cannot survive. Accordingly, the penalty order u/s

SELVARAJ ARPUTHARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-I, , COIMBAOTORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2029/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2030/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2031/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15

271(1)(c) qua addition of Rs.49,51,362/- and Rs.1,87,75,583/- for AY-2013-14 and AY 2014-15 was passed on 25.10.2021. Accordingly, it is abundantly clear that the penalty order dated 25.10.2021 has been hit by limitation prescribed in section 275(1)(a) and cannot survive. Accordingly, the penalty order u/s

SELVARAJ ARPUTHARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-I,, COIMBAOTORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2029/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2030/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2031/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15

271(1)(c) qua addition of Rs.49,51,362/- and Rs.1,87,75,583/- for AY-2013-14 and AY 2014-15 was passed on 25.10.2021. Accordingly, it is abundantly clear that the penalty order dated 25.10.2021 has been hit by limitation prescribed in section 275(1)(a) and cannot survive. Accordingly, the penalty order u/s

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

FUTURE GAMING AND HOTEL SERVICES P LTD,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand 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.950/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Future Gaming & Hotel Acit बनाम/ Services Private Limited Central Circle-2, 54, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. Vs. Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 029. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-9751-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Cit-Dr A/W Ms. Anitha (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

275 of the Act have been made applicable in relation to the penalty referred to section 271AAB of the Act. It has been further observed that section 274 deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity

M/S ENRICE ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is pari materia with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

1).\n(3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in\nrelation to the penalty referred to in this section.” [emphasis supplied]\n3. As such, the Learned Assessing Officer ought to have invoked the provisions\nof Section 271AAC of the Act to levy penalty relating to an addition made\ntowards 'unexplained investments' that