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, 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

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, 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

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

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)

5 I.T.A. Nos.785 to 788/Chny/23 & C.O. Nos. 40-43/Chny/23 initiated under Section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The abovementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered with reference

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)

5 I.T.A. Nos.785 to 788/Chny/23 & C.O. Nos. 40-43/Chny/23 initiated under Section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The abovementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered with reference

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)

5 I.T.A. Nos.785 to 788/Chny/23 & C.O. Nos. 40-43/Chny/23 initiated under Section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The abovementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered with reference

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)

5 I.T.A. Nos.785 to 788/Chny/23 & C.O. Nos. 40-43/Chny/23 initiated under Section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The abovementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered with reference

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

271(l)(c). The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that certain additions have been made in the assessment proceedings. 10. The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that penalty cannot be levied merely because an amount taxed as income

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

271(l)(c). The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that certain additions have been made in the assessment proceedings. 10. The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that penalty cannot be levied merely because an amount taxed as income

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 139”. From the above, it is clear that the legislation did not mandate issuance of a notice for Penalty proceeding hearing whereas for all other proceeding hearing, the legislation mandated issuance of a notice. The logic being, u/s 271 of the Income tax Act, penalty proceedings are initiated or have to be initiated during the pendency of assessment

MUTHURATHINAM,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), TIRUPPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2656/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Muthurathinam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27/29, Kumarappapuram, Ward 1(2) 1St Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Avypm 0862D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate By Virtual. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Penalty Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issue Sought To Be Urged By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] By Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ In Short) In Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Has Satisfied That Penalty Proceeding Is Being Initiated Separately For “Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income” Where As Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 04.01.2022 Levied Penalty For “Concealment Of Income”, Although In The Notice Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1) (C), The Ao Has Marked The Specified Limb As “That You Have Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income”.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Hence, respectfully following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) and the other decisions of different High Courts, we held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee was not valid

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

5. The Commissioner erred in not applying the rationale of various judgments that supported the present case. Further it ought to have been noted that an incorrect claim, if at all, does not result in a conclusion of concealment of income as such, so as to attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) since the same proceeds only on a different

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