THE SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,WAYANAD vs. THE JCIT RANGE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

Income Tax (Appeals) has gone wrong in confirming the penalty u/s.271D in respect of deposits received in cash, without considering the circumstances pertaining in the locality, where the business of the society is carried out. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred by confirming penalty in respect of deposit accepted to Govt. The Sec 269SS clearly stated that these section

THE SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,WAYANAD vs. THE JCIT RANGE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

Income Tax (Appeals) has gone wrong in confirming the penalty u/s.271D in respect of deposits received in cash, without considering the circumstances pertaining in the locality, where the business of the society is carried out. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred by confirming penalty in respect of deposit accepted to Govt. The Sec 269SS clearly stated that these section

SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

business as income, even as assessment was not appealed as he was under a bona fide impression that no penalty would be charged. The same did not find favour with both the AO and the first appellate authority, leading to the instant appeal. 3. We have considered the rival contentions, and perused the material on record. 3.1 The assessee

SHRI.PRAKASH R. NAIR,KOLLAM vs. DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 25.06.2008 for Assessment Year 2000-01 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [CIT(A)], vide it’s order dated 27.04.2021. 2. It would be relevant to recount the facts of the case. The assessee is in the business of manufacture and export

HERCULES AUTOMOBILES INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. AO TYPE-W, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ALLEPPEY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hercules Automobiles International P. Ltd. .......... Appellant Tc No.16/1860, Dpi Road, Thycaud S.O. Chempakassery, Thiruvananthapuram 695014 [Pan: Aabcn2898M] Vs. Dcit, Circle - 1, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Jose Zachariah, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025

business of dealing in Maruti cars. The original return of income for AY 2012-13 was filed on 28.09.2012 declaring Nil income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was 2 Hercules Automobiles International P. Ltd. completed by the DCIT, Circle -1,Alappuzha (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 31.12.2014 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD,PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

business attributable to its activity of providing credit facilities to its members?" by answering the said question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. ” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Given the above, we are of the view that penalty of INR 48,515/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained and is hereby deleted

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

business attributable to its activity of providing credit facilities to its members?" by answering the said question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. ” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Given the above, we are of the view that penalty of INR 48,515/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained and is hereby deleted

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD ,PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

business attributable to its activity of providing credit facilities to its members?" by answering the said question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. ” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Given the above, we are of the view that penalty of INR 48,515/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained and is hereby deleted

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

business attributable to its activity of providing credit facilities to its members?" by answering the said question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. ” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Given the above, we are of the view that penalty of INR 48,515/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained and is hereby deleted

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,MG ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

business attributable to its activity of providing credit facilities to its members?" by answering the said question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. ” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Given the above, we are of the view that penalty of INR 48,515/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained and is hereby deleted

PANNIVIZHA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD 891,M G ROAD PANNIVIZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

business attributable to its activity of providing credit facilities to its members?" by answering the said question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. ” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Given the above, we are of the view that penalty of INR 48,515/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained and is hereby deleted

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Christudanam Yassaya .......... Appellant Bathel Kp 17A Maruthoor, Vattapara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695028 [Pan: Acmpy4412C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003

business of Rs. 5,43,948/-. The AO made addition on account of short term capital gain on sale of property at Rs. 32,42,980/-. On the above addition the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This assessment order was passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 264 on 29.11.2019 at a total income

SAI EXPORT ENTERPRISES,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KOLLAM

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sai Export Enerprises .......... Appellant Mangad P.O., Kollam 691015 [Pan: Absfs2716A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tpo, Kollam .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31.03.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Processing & Export Of Cashew Nuts. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 17.02.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 42,15,670/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National

business of processing and export of cashew nuts. The return of income for AY 2016-17 was filed on 17.02.2017 declaring income of Rs. 42,15,670/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National 2 Sai Export Enerprises Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 27.12.2019 passed u/s

MALLELIL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Attachakkal P.O., Pathanamthitta 689691 [Pan: Aafcm0761Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Surendran, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24.08.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Rock Aggregates & Running A Quarry. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Fled On 22.09.2015 Declaring Income Of Rs. 2,54,10,720/-. Survey

business premises of the appellant on 09.02.2016. During the course of survey proceedings, undisclosed sales were unearthed and additional income of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- was found. Subsequent to the survey the appellant revised the return of income at a total income of Rs. 4,29,10,720/- by disclosing additional income of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-. Against

THEKKINIAN PAULOSE VARKEY,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

business of executing construction contracts under the name and style of T.P. Constructions. The return of income for AY 2015-16 was filed on 30.09.2015 declaring income of Rs. 33,30,150/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was 2 Thekkinian Poulose Varkey completed by the ACIT, Circle 2(1), Thrissur (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated

ATTU PURATTU ISMAIL,THALASSERY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , KANNUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Attupurattu Ismail .......... Appellant Attupuratt House, Thalassesry, Kannur 670676 [Pan: Abfbi7471M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kannur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Ananthakrishnan R. Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 01.09.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Was Filed On 22.03.2014 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 2,63,300/-. The Search & Seizure Operations U/S. 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Conducted In The Business Premises Of Parco Group Of Concerns

business of jewellery shops under the brand name M/s. Swarnanjali Gold. It was unearthed during the course of search and seizure operations in the said case that the appellant had invested a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- in the firm M/s. Soan Fashion Jewellery and having 2% share in the firm and also received interest on capital contribution

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

income under the head ‘profits and gains of business’ of Rs.20,952/-, telephone charges of Rs. 8,686/-, discount of Rs. 16,165/- and on account of low GP of Rs. 5,93,581/-. It is significant to note that the above additions were made no based on the seized documents found relating to the assessee in the case

SRI.MOHAMMED SHERIEF,KARUNAGAPPALLY vs. THE DCIT, KOLLAM

In the result, ITA No. 463/Coch/2016 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

income under the head ‘profits and gains of business’ of Rs.20,952/-, telephone charges of Rs. 8,686/-, discount of Rs. 16,165/- and on account of low GP of Rs. 5,93,581/-. It is significant to note that the above additions were made no based on the seized documents found relating to the assessee in the case

THE KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD ,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, WD-1(2),, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 5 ITANos. 248 & 249/Coch/2020 (AY: 2015-16) The Karannur Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. ITO November 6, 2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on July 29, 2008, is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation