M/S PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

u/s 270A was under a wrong section. The order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence the order of the AO is set aside to the extent of non-initiation of penalty proceedings under the correct section. The AO is directed to pass fresh order accordingly.” Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

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)

12. During the course of hearing, both the sides agreed that in the facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the Assessment Year 2011-2012, following penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section

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)

12. During the course of hearing, both the sides agreed that in the facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the Assessment Year 2011-2012, following penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section

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)

12. During the course of hearing, both the sides agreed that in the facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the Assessment Year 2011-2012, following penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section

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)

12. During the course of hearing, both the sides agreed that in the facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the Assessment Year 2011-2012, following penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section

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)

12. During the course of hearing, both the sides agreed that in the facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the Assessment Year 2011-2012, following penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section

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)

12. During the course of hearing, both the sides agreed that in the facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the Assessment Year 2011-2012, following penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied upon the Assessee in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section

SMT. AMINA ANVAR,KOLLAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Amina Anvar Vs Dcit,Circle -1 Alappuzha City Opticals, Pipson Complex Pada South, Karunagappally Kollam Kerala-690 518 Pan – Agmpa5574B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Rajakannan, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. 2. The Solitary Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Imposition Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act Amounting To Rs. 38,669/-.

section 271(1)(c) is essential for the Revenue to initiate the penalty proceedings. 8. The penalty proceedings must be confined only to those grounds specifically stated in the notice so that the assessee could meet those grounds. It is not open to the authority, to impose a penalty on the grounds other than what the assessee was called upon

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY P.O vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 271E imposing penalty of Rs 34 lakhs on the appellant. b) Any other order which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper and in the circumstances of the case.” 12. In this appeal the assessee had challenged the order of the CIT(A) in which the ld CIT had confirmed the penalty levied u/s 271

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY, KOTHAMANGALAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 271E imposing penalty of Rs 34 lakhs on the appellant. b) Any other order which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper and in the circumstances of the case.” 12. In this appeal the assessee had challenged the order of the CIT(A) in which the ld CIT had confirmed the penalty levied u/s 271

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)

u/s. 271(1)(c) r/w Explanation 1 thereto, adverting to the copy of the said notice (PB pg. 3). Reliance for the purpose was placed by him principally on Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. Dy. CIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom)(FB), also reading out there-from. Smt. Devi would, in reply, submit that the matter ought to be decided

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.

section is not applicable in respect of deposits/loan accepted from Govt. and hence penalty is not leviable u/s 2711) of the Act. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the ground of appeal. 7. The appellant may submit that the penalty of Rs.1,02,14,54,585/- levied u/s.271D

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.

section is not applicable in respect of deposits/loan accepted from Govt. and hence penalty is not leviable u/s 2711) of the Act. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the ground of appeal. 7. The appellant may submit that the penalty of Rs.1,02,14,54,585/- levied u/s.271D

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

M/S.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

CHUNDAYIL KALAM GIRIJADEVI ,KERALASSERY vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, PALAKKAD

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, even if the claim made by him is unsustainable in law provided that he either substantiates the explanation offered by him or the explanation, even if not substantiated, is found to be bona fide. E. Where the appellant has withdrawn the claim during the course of the assessment proceedings, the penalty under section 270A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, is thus presumed (Cement Marketing Company of India vs. Asst. CST [1980] 124 ITR 15 (SC)). Saving is, further, provided for a bona fide explanation which is substantiated by disclosure of material facts or difference of estimate based duly disclosed material (s. 270A(6)). Further still, an immunity from penalty is provided u/s. 270AA

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

12 was filed by the assessee. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter called "the AO") issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 13.06.2017. The appellant 2 Christudanam Yassaya neither complied with the notice u/s. 148 of the Act nor notices issued u/s. 142 of the Act. In the circumstances

M/S. THE THIRUNELLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,WAYANAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

u/s. 271D, no penalty can be levied placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (2015) 379 ITR 521 (SC). 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR placing reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of The Nadapuram Service Co-op. Bank