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)

section 132 of the Act on 30.09.2015. Consequently, the assessee filed his return of income on 15.10.2016 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 66,45,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 30.12.2017 after making addition towards unexplained interest paid/unexplained cash expenses. Against the same, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

section 132 of the Act on 30.09.2015. Consequently, the assessee filed his return of income on 15.10.2016 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 66,45,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 30.12.2017 after making addition towards unexplained interest paid/unexplained cash expenses. Against the same, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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)

section 132 of the Act on 30.09.2015. Consequently, the assessee filed his return of income on 15.10.2016 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 66,45,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 30.12.2017 after making addition towards unexplained interest paid/unexplained cash expenses. Against the same, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

u/s 132 of the Act,\nunearthed unaccounted cash transactions, which warrants penalty of 60%.\nInvalidating the notice on technical issue, would defeat the intent of the\nlegislature.\ne) Holistic Interpretation of the Notice\nThe Ld. DR submitted that the notice must be read in conjunction with the\nassessment order, penalty order and search proceedings.\nf) Assessee's Conduct Warrants Penalty

DR.S.F.V.SELVARAJ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.868 & 869/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Dr. (Late) S.F.V. Selvaraj, The Deputy Commissioner Of Rep. By L/H Dr. Kamala Selvaraj, Vs. Income Tax, Dr. Deepu Rajkamal Selvaraj, Dr. Priya Central Circle 2(5), Selvaraj, No. 22, 5Th Street, Dr. Chennai. Thirumurthy Nagar, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps5404L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 08.02.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Quantum Addition Of Unexplained Cash Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271Aaa Of The Act. Against Quantum Addition, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

u/s. 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act the order impugned must have been quashed. 4. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) failed to note that the conditions for levy of penalty is lacking and as such the penalty order is untenable in law. 5. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) went wrong in holding that the addition made fall within

DR.S.F.V.SELVARAJ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.868 & 869/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Dr. (Late) S.F.V. Selvaraj, The Deputy Commissioner Of Rep. By L/H Dr. Kamala Selvaraj, Vs. Income Tax, Dr. Deepu Rajkamal Selvaraj, Dr. Priya Central Circle 2(5), Selvaraj, No. 22, 5Th Street, Dr. Chennai. Thirumurthy Nagar, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps5404L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 08.02.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Quantum Addition Of Unexplained Cash Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271Aaa Of The Act. Against Quantum Addition, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

u/s. 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act the order impugned must have been quashed. 4. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) failed to note that the conditions for levy of penalty is lacking and as such the penalty order is untenable in law. 5. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) went wrong in holding that the addition made fall within