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

u/s 153A (notice served n 17-072013) on 27.07.2013 admitting a total income of Rs.35,02,01,900. The AO vide order dated :-18-: ITA. No: 2207/Chny/2019 28.09.2017 levied penalties on additions Sustained by CIT(A) on undisclosed income on account of excess stock of jewellery and undisclosed profit on account of undervaluation of stock of Rs.2,43.11,800 being

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. GHISULAI KOTHARI, CHENNAI

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act even in cases involving search actions if in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is so warranted. The only bar is that no penalty under the provisions of section 270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income

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

undisclosed income for A.Y. 2020-21. • The 60% penalty is justified, and the assessee's challenge appears to be an attempt to avoid liability despite evident tax evasion. g. Judicial Precedents Upholding Revenue's Position • In Mak Data P. Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), the Supreme Court upheld penalties despite procedural irregularities, as the assessee was aware

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

undisclosed income for A.Y. 2020-21. • The 60% penalty is justified, and the assessee's challenge appears to be an attempt to avoid liability despite evident tax evasion. g. Judicial Precedents Upholding Revenue's Position • In Mak Data P. Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), the Supreme Court upheld penalties despite procedural irregularities, as the assessee was aware

ACIT CENTRLA CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. SHANTILAL KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act even in cases involving search actions if in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is so warranted. The only bar is that no penalty under the provisions of section 270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. KEWALCHAND KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act even in cases involving search actions if in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is so warranted. The only bar is that no penalty under the provisions of section 270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. SARDARMAL KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act even in cases involving search actions if in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is so warranted. The only bar is that no penalty under the provisions of section 270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income

R.MAHALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 17(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3106/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Acit, Smt. R. Mahalakshmi, No.24, Abm Avenue, Non-Corporate Circle – 17(1), Chennai. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Agqpm8406N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer relied only on the statement of the assessee and the Return of income filed and levied penalty. The assessee has not retracted the statement on disclosure of income. The Ld. CIT(A) gave the directions to the Assessing Officer to levy penalty u/s. 271AAA of the Act as against provisions of section 271

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

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

u/s 271(l)(c) for concealment of income was deleted by Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals where addition was made on estimation on total turnover or gross profit of the business. In the appellant's case the addition was made under the head "income form, house property" on the basis of extracts of the cash books which were seized during

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

u/s 271(l)(c) for concealment of income was deleted by Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals where addition was made on estimation on total turnover or gross profit of the business. In the appellant's case the addition was made under the head "income form, house property" on the basis of extracts of the cash books which were seized during

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

u/s 271(l)(c) for concealment of income was deleted by Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals where addition was made on estimation on total turnover or gross profit of the business. In the appellant's case the addition was made under the head "income form, house property" on the basis of extracts of the cash books which were seized during

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

u/s 271(l)(c) for concealment of income was deleted by Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals where addition was made on estimation on total turnover or gross profit of the business. In the appellant's case the addition was made under the head "income form, house property" on the basis of extracts of the cash books which were seized during

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

undisclosed income for A.Υ. 2020-21.\n•\nThe 60% penalty is justified, and the assessee's challenge appears to\nbe an attempt to avoid liability despite evident tax evasion.\ng. Judicial Precedents Upholding Revenue's Position\n•\nIn Mak Data P. Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), the Supreme\nCourt upheld penalties despite procedural irregularities

ST. JOSHEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

undisclosed income for A.Y. 2020-21.\n• The 60% penalty is justified, and the assessee's challenge appears to\nbe an attempt to avoid liability despite evident tax evasion.\ng. Judicial Precedents Upholding Revenue's Position\n• In Mak Data P. Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), the Supreme\nCourt upheld penalties despite procedural irregularities, as the\nassessee

N.SANTHANAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.328/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mr. N.Santhanam Vs The Assistant Commissioner Old No.14, New No.12, Income Tax, Seethammal Colony Extension, Central Circle-1(2) 1St Cross Street, Teynampet, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 018. Pan: Axups 6533R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s 132(4) had admitted the undisclosed income and specified manner in which such income has been derived as manifested as business income but 10 has not filed return of income within the due date. Thus, the appellant’s case is squarely covered by clause(c) of Section 271AAB(1) of the Act and therefore the provisions of Section 271AAB

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

u/s 271 (1) (c) will be\ninitiated separately for concealment of particulars of income." definitely\ncannot be the basis for arriving a conclusion to levy the penalty. Before\nlevying the penalty the A.O. must establish in unequivocal term about the\nexistence of concealment and make a speaking order.\n6.2.9 Further during the course of appellate proceedings, the AR has\nclearly

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) will be\ninitiated separately for concealment of particulars of income." definitely\ncannot be the basis for arriving a conclusion to levy the penalty. Before\nlevying the penalty the A.O. must establish in unequivocal term about the\nexistence of concealment and make a speaking order.\n6.2.9 Further during the course of appellate proceedings, the AR has\nclearly

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) will be\ninitiated separately for concealment of particulars of income." definitely\ncannot be the basis for arriving a conclusion to levy the penalty. Before\nlevying the penalty the A.O. must establish in unequivocal term about the\nexistence of concealment and make a speaking order.\n6.2.9 Further during the course of appellate proceedings, the AR has\nclearly