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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by ld. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by ld. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

FUTURE GAMING AND HOTEL SERVICES P LTD,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.950/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Future Gaming & Hotel Acit बनाम/ Services Private Limited Central Circle-2, 54, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. Vs. Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 029. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-9751-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Cit-Dr A/W Ms. Anitha (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

70,00,000/- was based on loose sheets recovered during search without any substantiating evidence and further failed to appreciate that the penalty initiated u/s 271AAB in consequence to the erroneous order passed u/s 153A was wrong, incorrect, invalid, erroneous, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 6. The CIT (Appeals)- 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that

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

u/s 271AAB is leviable only on undisclosed income and not merely on an admission made by the assessee u/s.132 (4). The assessing officer has miserably failed to quantify the undisclosed income. :: 3 :: 9. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the AO while levying penalty under section 271 AAB failed to follow the specific definition of undisclosed income

M/S ENRICE 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

70,000/- of unaccounted cash was found and seized from the residential premise of Shri M.Kothandarami Reddy as well as six individuals who identified themselves as associates of the assessee and claimed that they have held the cash for and on behalf of the assessee. The amount of cash seized during the course of search and seizure

M/S ENRIA 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

70,000/- of unaccounted cash was found and seized from the residential premise of Shri M.Kothandarami Reddy as well as six individuals who identified themselves as associates of the assessee and claimed that they have held the cash for and on behalf of the assessee. The amount of cash seized during the course of search and seizure

ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

271(1) is concerned, the AO to record ‘satisfaction’ to levy penalty whereas in section 270A(1), the AO to give ‘direction’ for levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act.] In this case, the AO has not given any such direction while passing the assessment order on Arusuvai Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. :: 7 :: 31.03.2022, pursuant to which, he levied penalty

P. KALAISELVI ,POLUR vs. ACIT , VELLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.984/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ms.Palani Kalai Selvi, The Asst. Commissioner – No.2A, Old No.7, Of Income Tax, Abdul Sukkur St., Circle-1, Polur-606 608. Vellore. [Pan: Bcapk 5385 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2023

70 TTJ 720 (Pune) (delay of 41/2 months) holding that marginal delays in filing the audit report (appellant's delay 4.75 months), should not be visited with a penalty u/s 271B. 2.10 The AO misdirected himself by ignoring the decisions that Sec.44AB was only 'directory1 and NOT mandatory - CIT vs Sivananda electronics 209 ITR 63 (Bom); AO vs Rameshchandra

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

section shall apply where- (a) the assessee (i) owns 70 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or (iii) 71constructs any residential

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

section shall apply where- (a) the assessee (i) owns 70 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or (iii) 71constructs any residential

SHRI S MANOHARAN ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.616 To 619/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Mr.S.Manoharan, V. The Dy. Commissioner- G-3, Saratha Krupa Appt., Of Income Tax, No.55 (Old 47), Naidu Road, Central Circle-2, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 012. [Pan:Aedpm 7539 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.N. Arjunraj, Ca For Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.02.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

70,800 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee challenged penalty levied u/s.270A(9) of the Act, on the ground that additions made towards undisclosed income on account of rental receipt is only an estimation, which does not warrant levy of penalty. The Ld.CIT

SHRI S MANOHARAN ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.616 To 619/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Mr.S.Manoharan, V. The Dy. Commissioner- G-3, Saratha Krupa Appt., Of Income Tax, No.55 (Old 47), Naidu Road, Central Circle-2, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 012. [Pan:Aedpm 7539 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.N. Arjunraj, Ca For Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.02.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

70,800 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee challenged penalty levied u/s.270A(9) of the Act, on the ground that additions made towards undisclosed income on account of rental receipt is only an estimation, which does not warrant levy of penalty. The Ld.CIT

SHRI S MANOHARAN ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.616 To 619/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Mr.S.Manoharan, V. The Dy. Commissioner- G-3, Saratha Krupa Appt., Of Income Tax, No.55 (Old 47), Naidu Road, Central Circle-2, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 012. [Pan:Aedpm 7539 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.N. Arjunraj, Ca For Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.02.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

70,800 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee challenged penalty levied u/s.270A(9) of the Act, on the ground that additions made towards undisclosed income on account of rental receipt is only an estimation, which does not warrant levy of penalty. The Ld.CIT