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

reassessment provisions.\nHowever, the provisions that are saved are those under Section 153B and\n153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 153B and 153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed

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

reassessment provisions.\nHowever, the provisions that are saved are those under Section 153B and\n153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 153B and 153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed

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

reassessment provisions.\nHowever, the provisions that are saved are those under Section 153B and\n153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 153B and 153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed

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

reassessment provisions.\nHowever, the provisions that are saved are those under Section 153B and\n153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 153B and 153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed

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

reassessment provisions.\nHowever, the provisions that are saved are those under Section 153B and\n153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 153B and 153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed

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

reassessment provisions.\nHowever, the provisions that are saved are those under Section 153B and\n153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 153B and 153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed

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)

B. When the initiation of penalty proceeding considered does communicated to the assessee 1. The communication of initiation of penalty proceeding in the records of the Assessing Officer has been complete upon service of the Demand notice along with the assessment order. C. Whether there is a legal obligation u/s 271 or u/s 274 of the Act to issue

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)

B. When the initiation of penalty proceeding considered does communicated to the assessee 1. The communication of initiation of penalty proceeding in the records of the Assessing Officer has been complete upon service of the Demand notice along with the assessment order. C. Whether there is a legal obligation u/s 271 or u/s 274 of the Act to issue

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

b) six months\nfrom the end of the month in which the penalty is initiated, whichever is\nlater. Hence, the crucial aspect which is to be examined is which date is\nto be considered as the date on which `action for imposition of penalty\nis considered as initiated'. According to the Ld. AR, it is the date on\nwhich

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)

b) of Section 153A(1) provided for the identification of the six AYs' with reference to the "previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made". The block of six AYs' were to be identified commencing from the AY "immediately ITA No.1103/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20) Bondalapati Shivaji Rao :: 16 :: preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous

M. VELUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

B. Sathyamoorthy, partner of Erode based builder firm (M/s S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee of the trust had admitted Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee

K. SADASIVAM,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

B. Sathyamoorthy, partner of Erode based builder firm (M/s S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee of the trust had admitted Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee

RAMASAMY PALANISAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

B. Sathyamoorthy, partner of Erode based builder firm (M/s S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee of the trust had admitted Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee

K. BASKAR,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

B. Sathyamoorthy, partner of Erode based builder firm (M/s S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee of the trust had admitted Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee

R.EASWARAMOORTHY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

B. Sathyamoorthy, partner of Erode based builder firm (M/s S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee of the trust had admitted Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee

P. KARUNANITHI,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

B. Sathyamoorthy, partner of Erode based builder firm (M/s S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee of the trust had admitted Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee

M. NATESAN,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

B. Sathyamoorthy, partner of Erode based builder firm (M/s S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee of the trust had admitted Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee

S. ARAVIND,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

B. Sathyamoorthy, partner of Erode based builder firm (M/s S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee of the trust had admitted Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee