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)

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/ Date

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)

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/ Date

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)

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/ Date

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the\nCross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

42 out of 153 persons\nwhich pertained to amount(s) aggregating to Rs.14,26,12,672/-. The\nassessee demonstrated before the AO that these persons had never made\nany such cash deposits with him nor did they have the financial capability\nof giving such huge sums. After examining the genuineness of the\nconfirmations filed by the relevant parties and verifying

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

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, 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, 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, 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

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, THIRUVANNAMALAI

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/-\n, which formed part

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

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

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

271. 5.2 The assessee defended the penalty on the ground that it had duly explained the manner in which the income of Rs.10 Crores was earned and the application of income was also explained. The said income was duly offered in the return of income and it had already paid self- assessment tax of Rs.163.10 Lacs including the cash seized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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