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)

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(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld. AO, vide letter dated 15.03.2021, intimated to the appropriate authority that the assessee received

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)

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(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld. AO, vide letter dated 15.03.2021, intimated to the appropriate authority that the assessee received

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)

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(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld. AO, vide letter dated 15.03.2021, intimated to the appropriate authority that the assessee received

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

5 & #6: NON-DISCLOSURE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE CASE\nOF THE APPELLANT\n1. The Ld. AO erred in levying penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act where there is no\nundisclosed income in the case of the appellant.\n2. The Ld. AO erred in concluding that the appellant is found to have\nundisclosed income without taking cognizance of the fact

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

5 ::\nITA Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024\n(AYs 2018-19 & 2020-21)\nSt. Joseph's Educational Trust\n&\nITA Nos.3295 to 3297/Chny/2024\n(AYS 2018-19 to 2020-21)\nSt. Joseph's Institute of Science &\nTechnology Trust\nmanually on 23.09.2021 and paid tax on it on 29.07.2020 viz., on the\namount of shortfall in the application of funds to the extent

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