MANGAL & MANGAL,TRICHY vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2207/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 273B of the Act. We find that the Ld. CIT (A) had looked into irrelevant circumstances for deleting the levy of penalty in the instant case forgetting the fact that the levy of penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act is automatic in nature as per the plain reading of the provisions of the Act. Hence, we hold that

M/S ENRICE ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

271 AAB failed to follow the specific definition of undisclosed income provided in Section 271AAB, being penal provision and that the same is required to be strictly construed in light of satisfaction of conditions specified therein. 10. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that appellant has admitted a consolidated sum of Rs. 113.99 Crores over the Financial Years

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, 50A, Bhavaji Nagar, 2Nd Street, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. Pan: Alipk 1937H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca : 03.09.2025 : 21.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Orders Of Cit(A) Arise Out Of Orders Of Ao Imposing Penalties U/S.271(1)(C) / 270A / 271Aa Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16, 2017-18, To 2021-22. The Details Of The Respective Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - S. No.

section 271(1)(c) could not justify imposition of penalty. 20. The CIT(A) further distinguished the reliance placed by the AO on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in P. Rajaswamy v. CIT (323 ITR 527), holding that the said decision pertained to a period prior to the introduction of Explanation 5A (effective from

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, 50A, Bhavaji Nagar, 2Nd Street, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Pan: Alipk 1937H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Orders Of Cit(A) Arise Out Of Orders Of Ao Imposing Penalties U/S.271(1)(C) / 270A / 271Aa Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16, 2017-18, To 2021-22. The Details Of The Respective Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - S. No.

section 271(1)(c) could not justify imposition of penalty. 20. The CIT(A) further distinguished the reliance placed by the AO on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in P. Rajaswamy v. CIT (323 ITR 527), holding that the said decision pertained to a period prior to the introduction of Explanation 5A (effective from

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing Vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, 50A, Bhavaji Nagar, 2Nd Street, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. Pan: Alipk 1937H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca : 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Orders Of Cit(A) Arise Out Of Orders Of Ao Imposing Penalties U/S.271(1)(C) / 270A / 271Aa Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16, 2017-18, To 2021-22. The Details Of The Respective Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - S. No.

section 271(1)(c) could not justify imposition of penalty. 20. The CIT(A) further distinguished the reliance placed by the AO on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in P. Rajaswamy v. CIT (323 ITR 527), holding that the said decision pertained to a period prior to the introduction of Explanation 5A (effective from

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing Vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, 50A, Bhavaji Nagar, 2Nd Street, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. Pan: Alipk 1937H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca : 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Orders Of Cit(A) Arise Out Of Orders Of Ao Imposing Penalties U/S.271(1)(C) / 270A / 271Aa Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16, 2017-18, To 2021-22. The Details Of The Respective Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - S. No.

section 271(1)(c) could not justify imposition of penalty. 20. The CIT(A) further distinguished the reliance placed by the AO on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in P. Rajaswamy v. CIT (323 ITR 527), holding that the said decision pertained to a period prior to the introduction of Explanation 5A (effective from

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, 50A, Bhavaji Nagar, 2Nd Street, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing Pan: Alipk 1937H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca : 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Orders Of Cit(A) Arise Out Of Orders Of Ao Imposing Penalties U/S.271(1)(C) / 270A / 271Aa Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16, 2017-18, To 2021-22. The Details Of The Respective Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - S. No.

section 271(1)(c) could not justify imposition of penalty. 20. The CIT(A) further distinguished the reliance placed by the AO on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in P. Rajaswamy v. CIT (323 ITR 527), holding that the said decision pertained to a period prior to the introduction of Explanation 5A (effective from

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing Vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, 50A, Bhavaji Nagar, 2Nd Street, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. Pan: Alipk 1937H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca : 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Orders Of Cit(A) Arise Out Of Orders Of Ao Imposing Penalties U/S.271(1)(C) / 270A / 271Aa Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16, 2017-18, To 2021-22. The Details Of The Respective Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - S. No.

section 271(1)(c) could not justify imposition of penalty. 20. The CIT(A) further distinguished the reliance placed by the AO on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in P. Rajaswamy v. CIT (323 ITR 527), holding that the said decision pertained to a period prior to the introduction of Explanation 5A (effective from

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI vs. RICH INDIA HOUSING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such satisfaction is mandatory as held by the Delhi High Court in the case of SAS Pharmaceuticals (335 ITYR 259). The Supreme Court has also dismissed the SLP filed by the department on 5/8/2016 and confirmed the view of the Delhi High Court. The penalty

KRISHNAPPA GOWDER KALYANASUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) for concealment of income. 2.2 In response to penalty show-cause notice, the assessee opposed levy of penalty on the ground that there was no concealment of income. However, Ld. AO held that some loose sheets were found during search which had details of loans advanced by the assessee. These loans were not disclosed in the regular

KRISHNAPPA GOWDER KALYANASUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) for concealment of income. 2.2 In response to penalty show-cause notice, the assessee opposed levy of penalty on the ground that there was no concealment of income. However, Ld. AO held that some loose sheets were found during search which had details of loans advanced by the assessee. These loans were not disclosed in the regular

SURABI BULLION,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 271(1)(c). 6. The only question therefore that arises is as to the basis of the dropping of the penalty proceedings, after initiating the same, by the AO, and for which we find no reason in his order dropping penalty, which is by way of an order sheet entry dated 14.10.2014 (copy on record). This also stands emphasized

PALLADAM KRISHNASAMY GANESHWAR,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1221/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Palladam Krishnasamy Ganeshwar Dcit बनाम/ 21, Shri Ganesa Textiles, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Vs. Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adfpg-6476-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

5A to Sec. 271(1)(c) which provide that such admission would be deemed concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Finally, the impugned penalty was levied on the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. From the facts, it is undisputed fact that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, The Dcit, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Pammal, Chennai-600 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. The Dcit, Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Central Circle-1(2), 121, Shankar Nagar, Chennai. M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

u/s 153C of the Act, then no penalty is leviable. The Hon'ble High Court held that Explanation 5A to Section 271

BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Dwarakesh, Ca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Chennai (Hereinafter In Short `The Ld.Cit(A)') Dated 26.07.2023 Passed For Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short `Ay') 2019-20.

u/s 153C of the Act, then no penalty is leviable. The Hon'ble High Court held that Explanation 5A to Section 271