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

penalty proceedings\nu/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act by issuing show cause notice u/s.274\nr.w.s 271AAB of the Act on 27.03.2022.\n87.\nThe AO show caused the assessee requiring to explain as to\nwhy penalty u/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act should not be levied in\nrespect of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,42,15,889/-\nwhich formed part

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

penalty proceedings\nu/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act by issuing show cause notice u/s.274\nr.w.s 271AAB of the Act on 27.03.2022.\n86.\n87. The AO show caused the assessee requiring to explain as to\nwhy penalty u/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act should not be levied in\nrespect of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,42,15,889/-\nwhich formed part

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

penalty proceedings\nu/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act by issuing show cause notice u/s.274\nr.w.s 271AAB of the Act on 27.03.2022.\n87.\nThe AO show caused the assessee requiring to explain as to\nwhy penalty u/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act should not be levied in\nrespect of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,42,15,889/-\nwhich formed part

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

penalty proceedings\nu/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act by issuing show cause notice u/s.274\nr.w.s 271AAB of the Act on 27.03.2022.\n87.\nThe AO show caused the assessee requiring to explain as to\nwhy penalty u/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act should not be levied in\nrespect of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,42,15,889/-\nwhich formed part

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

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

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)

41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (in I.T.A. Nos.785 to 788/Chny/2023) The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shri Subramaniam Thanu, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), No. 5, First Street, Karpagam Avenue, Investigation Building, R.A. Puram, Chennai 600 028. Chennai -600 034. [PAN: AABPD8561A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Department by : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT Assessee by Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख

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)

41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (in I.T.A. Nos.785 to 788/Chny/2023) The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shri Subramaniam Thanu, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), No. 5, First Street, Karpagam Avenue, Investigation Building, R.A. Puram, Chennai 600 028. Chennai -600 034. [PAN: AABPD8561A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Department by : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT Assessee by Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख

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)

41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (in I.T.A. Nos.785 to 788/Chny/2023) The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shri Subramaniam Thanu, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), No. 5, First Street, Karpagam Avenue, Investigation Building, R.A. Puram, Chennai 600 028. Chennai -600 034. [PAN: AABPD8561A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Department by : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT Assessee by Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख

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)

41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (in I.T.A. Nos.785 to 788/Chny/2023) The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shri Subramaniam Thanu, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), No. 5, First Street, Karpagam Avenue, Investigation Building, R.A. Puram, Chennai 600 028. Chennai -600 034. [PAN: AABPD8561A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Department by : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT Assessee by Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख

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

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

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