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

35 :: d. Search Context and Legislative Intent • Section 271AAB was introduced to penalize undisclosed income discovered during searches. The assessee concealed capitation fees, failed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a). • The 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate. Invalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat

M/S.ENRICA 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 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

M/S ENRICA 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 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking-off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non- application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

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)

35,016/- and passed order dated 27.06.2011. 4. Aggrieved by the order of penalty the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). In the appellant proceedings, the Ld. AR of the assessee argued that the Ld. AO erred in levying penalty as the assessee has offered Rs. 1,52,19,000/- in Return of income filed in compliance

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

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 ::

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 271AAB of the Act :: 15 :: Following the Hon'ble SC decision in the case of CIT VS SSA Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (SC) Hence, it is settled issue, upheld in several judicial decisions, that the AO is required to indicate the limb

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

1)(c) of the Act and a penalty at 30% was levied on the entire additional income admitted by the appellant. 9.15. Further, during the course of appellate proceedings, the AR explained regarding the inventory of jewellery made in the course of search and submitted before me the details of Valuation Report made by the Registered valuer by the department

PVP VENTURES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking-off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even in the body

M.ARUN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-2(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Chny/2021 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2008-09

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking- off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even in the body

KEMIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

u/s 271(1)(c) did not specify the exact charge i.e., concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars income, it was seen that assessment proceedings were concluded after detailed discussion with the assessee. The assessee was in real estate business and it would be too far-fetched to believe that income from transfer of land was claimed as exempt