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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 271AAB of the Act Further, the Ld.DR reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) do not death with the section 292B of the Act at all. Further, this decision only

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 ::

292B of the Act. For this proposition, we place our reliance on the jurisdictional decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT In the case of PVP Ventures Ltd Vs DCIT dated 08-06-2022 in ITA No.778/Chny/2019, wherein it has been held as under: "6.............Framing of specific charges is sine-qua-non for levy of penalty since the assessee must

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 ::

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 271AAB of the Act Further, the Ld.DR reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) do not death with the section 292B of the Act at all. Further, this decision only

D.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 271(1B) the tax payer cannot take a shelter that he was not aware why the Penalty proceedings have been initiated. In the instant case, the assessee was found to have concealed its real income consequent to survey conducted based on an original return filed u/s 139, wherein he had admitted only Rs.1,00,920/- as his income. Consequent

R.MAHALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 17(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3106/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Acit, Smt. R. Mahalakshmi, No.24, Abm Avenue, Non-Corporate Circle – 17(1), Chennai. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Agqpm8406N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act and due to mistake in stating the wrong section, the order cannot be said to be void and defect is curable u/s. 292B of the Act. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) is of the opinion that section 271AAA of the Act was introduced from 01.04.2007 applicable from Finance

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

Section 271(1)(c) was issued, initiating the proceedings of imposing the penalty. The assessee had sufficient notice of the action of imposing penalty. It was thus concluded, that there was no jurisdictional error or unjust exercise of power by the authority." III. To sumamrise, following points may also kindly be considered in this case: 1. The requirement of issuing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. DR.R.RANGARAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act and due to mistake in stating the wrong section, the order cannot be said to be void and defect is curable u/s. 292B of the Act. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) is of the opinion that section 271AAA of the Act was introduced from 01.04.2007 applicable from Finance

R.RANGARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act and due to mistake in stating the wrong section, the order cannot be said to be void and defect is curable u/s. 292B of the Act. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) is of the opinion that section 271AAA of the Act was introduced from 01.04.2007 applicable from Finance

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. R.MAHALAKSHMI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act and due to mistake in stating the wrong section, the order cannot be said to be void and defect is curable u/s. 292B of the Act. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) is of the opinion that section 271AAA of the Act was introduced from 01.04.2007 applicable from Finance

R.MAHALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act and due to mistake in stating the wrong section, the order cannot be said to be void and defect is curable u/s. 292B of the Act. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) is of the opinion that section 271AAA of the Act was introduced from 01.04.2007 applicable from Finance

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be reckoned as invalid in the eyes of law’’. Ld. Authorised Representative further submitted that the additional grounds of appeal are purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter and therefore the same must be admitted in the light of the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be reckoned as invalid in the eyes of law’’. Ld. Authorised Representative further submitted that the additional grounds of appeal are purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter and therefore the same must be admitted in the light of the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be reckoned as invalid in the eyes of law’’. Ld. Authorised Representative further submitted that the additional grounds of appeal are purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter and therefore the same must be admitted in the light of the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, The Dcit, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Pammal, Chennai-600 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. The Dcit, Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Central Circle-1(2), 121, Shankar Nagar, Chennai. M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act applies only in case of the searched person and not the persons covered u/s 153C of the Act. It was therefore held that, only in case of a searched person, it may be open for the Revenue to levy penalty in a case where income is surrendered in the return filed u/s 153A

BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Dwarakesh, Ca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Chennai (Hereinafter In Short `The Ld.Cit(A)') Dated 26.07.2023 Passed For Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short `Ay') 2019-20.

271(1)(c) of the Act applies only in case of the searched person and not the persons covered u/s 153C of the Act. It was therefore held that, only in case of a searched person, it may be open for the Revenue to levy penalty in a case where income is surrendered in the return filed u/s 153A

R.VASUKI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

271(1)(c) should though be discernible from the assessment or the appellate order. Further, even if these conditions do not exist in the assessment order a direction to initiate assessment proceedings by the AO is a must, i.e., for initiating penalty proceedings. The basis or the ground on which the penalty is levied in the present case is whether

MUTHUKUMARAN RANGARAJAN,CHIDAMBARAM vs. ITO WARD 3, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1841 & 1842/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2013-14. Muthukumaran Rangarajan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 149-A, Bharathidasan Ward 3, Street, Cuddalore. Kanagasabai Nagar, Chidambaram 608 001. [Pan Aabpr 6319Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at total income of Rs. 20,05,530/-. Subsequently, the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry exercising his powers vested with him u/s.263 of the Act had set aside the assessment since the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the issue of sale of closing stock

MUTHUKUMARAN RANGARAJAN,CHIDAMBARAM vs. ITO WARD 3, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1841 & 1842/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2013-14. Muthukumaran Rangarajan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 149-A, Bharathidasan Ward 3, Street, Cuddalore. Kanagasabai Nagar, Chidambaram 608 001. [Pan Aabpr 6319Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at total income of Rs. 20,05,530/-. Subsequently, the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry exercising his powers vested with him u/s.263 of the Act had set aside the assessment since the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the issue of sale of closing stock