ILJIN AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI
The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order
ITA 1834/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14
Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1834/Chny/2017 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Iljin Automotive Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.B1 & B2, Sipcot Industrial Park Corporate Circle-2(2), Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Chennai. Vs. Kanchipuram-602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-2641-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R
For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32Section 43ASection 92CSection 92C(3)
penalty.
5.4 The learned AO has failed to appreciate that the Appellant had acted in good faith and with due diligence, and therefore it was not a case of deemed concealment in terms of Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
1.3 The Ld. AR placed on record ground-wise chart and advanced arguments by referring
