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

271(1)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite proceedings to draw strength from each other. Nor can each cure the other's defect. A penalty proceeding is a corollary; nevertheless, it must stand on its own. These proceedings culminate under a different

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

271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section\n153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides that\n\"assessment or reassessment

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

271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section\n153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides that\n\"assessment or reassessment

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

271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section\n153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides that\n\"assessment or reassessment

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

271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section\n153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides that\n\"assessment or reassessment

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

271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section\n153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides that\n\"assessment or reassessment

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

271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section\n153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides that\n\"assessment or reassessment

SHRI.S.J.SURYAH,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment or recomputation under Section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income......as if such return were a return required to be furnished under Section 139", Similarly, the language use in Section 156 which is reproduced

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. SJ SURYAH, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment or recomputation under Section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income......as if such return were a return required to be furnished under Section 139", Similarly, the language use in Section 156 which is reproduced

KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

271(1) read with Section 263 of the Act, the Principal Commissioner might pass such order as the circumstances of the case might justify, which could include an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment. Directing fresh assessment would, in our view, include assessment of penalty. It cannot, therefore, be said that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the\nCross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 and no\nsatisfaction was recorded to initiate penalty proceedings under Section\n271D.\n11. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by\nthe decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City\n(supra). The notice issued under Section 271E and the proceedings in\npursuance thereto

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI vs. HEMALATHA RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.11/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7, No. 61, Tas Enclave, C3, Golden Kings Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 121, Court, 10Th Main Road, Santhi Colony, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aadpp4895M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.492 & 493/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, 3Rd Floor, Golden Kings Court, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. No. 61, Tas Enclave, Santhi Colony, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 11/Chny/2020 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30.12.2017 is not maintainable and the same is equally applicable to ground Nos. 2 to 4 of this appeal. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 15. I.T.A. No. 493/Chny/2020 for AY 2009-10 in the case of Smt. Hemalatha Rajan passed under section 271

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-7, CHENNAI vs. KARUPPUSAMY PANDIARAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.11/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7, No. 61, Tas Enclave, C3, Golden Kings Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 121, Court, 10Th Main Road, Santhi Colony, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aadpp4895M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.492 & 493/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, 3Rd Floor, Golden Kings Court, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. No. 61, Tas Enclave, Santhi Colony, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 11/Chny/2020 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30.12.2017 is not maintainable and the same is equally applicable to ground Nos. 2 to 4 of this appeal. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 15. I.T.A. No. 493/Chny/2020 for AY 2009-10 in the case of Smt. Hemalatha Rajan passed under section 271

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI vs. HEMALATHA RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.11/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7, No. 61, Tas Enclave, C3, Golden Kings Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 121, Court, 10Th Main Road, Santhi Colony, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aadpp4895M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.492 & 493/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, 3Rd Floor, Golden Kings Court, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. No. 61, Tas Enclave, Santhi Colony, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 11/Chny/2020 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30.12.2017 is not maintainable and the same is equally applicable to ground Nos. 2 to 4 of this appeal. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 15. I.T.A. No. 493/Chny/2020 for AY 2009-10 in the case of Smt. Hemalatha Rajan passed under section 271

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

reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 264 of the Act on 31.03.2022, determining the total assessed income at ₹1,70,77,591/- as against the returned income of ₹61,371/-. And as noted supra, the ibid assessment order didn’t contain any finding or direction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings in respect of the additions made, which

KARUR SREE RAMA TRADING PVT.LTD.,KARUR vs. ITO, CIRCLE-191), TRICHY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3841/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Karur Sree Rama Trading Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, S.F. No. 2262, Pari Nagar, Chinna Circle 1(1), Andan Koil Road, Karur 639 001. Trichy. [Pan:Aabfs8790C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.10.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed Under Section 147/271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the erstwhile partnership firm even though the firm had ceased to 2 I.T.A. No.3841/Chny/25 exist after conversion into a company w.e.f. 02.02.2012 and the penalty proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity are void ab initio. He further submits that the penalty arises from a reassessment

MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

reassessment. Since the\nreassessment had been set aside, the order of the Tribunal cancelling the penalty\nlevied under section 271

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

reassessment, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (4) of section 245HA, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year.] ITA No.355 & 27 others/Chny/2019 :- 14 -: 7.0 The Ld. AR informed that