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

5. In case of present assessee, the initiation of penalty 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

MR. RANJITH THAZHE KUNHAMBATH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), NON CORPORATE RANGE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

139(1). As per Form No. 16 issued subsequently by M/s. HDFC Bank Limited, TDS has been remitted on 06-05-2010 to the Government Account as per challan no. 05194. During the course of hearing the assessee admitted the omission to offer the perquisite value of ESOP to tax. The accordingly concluded the u/s 143(3) assessing the total

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

139(1) could not be filed due to personal problems and there was no deliberate concealment of income, therefore, no penalty should be levied. Considering the above explanation, the AO proceeded with levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

139(1) could not be filed due to personal problems and there was no deliberate concealment of income, therefore, no penalty should be levied. Considering the above explanation, the AO proceeded with levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

VALSAN CHIYYABATH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

139(1) could not be filed due to personal problems and there was no deliberate concealment of income, therefore, no penalty should be levied. Considering the above explanation, the AO proceeded with levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

VALSAN CHIYYABATH NARAYANAN,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

139(1) could not be filed due to personal problems and there was no deliberate concealment of income, therefore, no penalty should be levied. Considering the above explanation, the AO proceeded with levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

penalty show cause notice dated 04.06.2024 issued u/s. 271(1)(c), the appellant came to know about the Order u/s 250. Immediately, on 05.06.2025, meeting of the Board of Directors of the Society was convened and decided to file the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin Bench against the Order of the CIT(A). Within 60 days from

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

penalty show cause notice dated 04.06.2024 issued u/s. 271(1)(c), the appellant came to know about the Order u/s 250. Immediately, on 05.06.2025, meeting of the Board of Directors of the Society was convened and decided to file the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin Bench against the Order of the CIT(A). Within 60 days from

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

penalty show cause notice dated 04.06.2024\nissued u/s. 271(1)(c), the appellant came to know about the Order u/s\n250. Immediately, on 05.06.2025, meeting of the Board of Directors\nof the Society was convened and decided to file the appeal before\nthe Hon'ble ITAT, Cochin Bench against the Order of the CIT(A).\nWithin 60 days from

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

5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises in the present appeal is whether the order imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is justified or not. Penalty proceedings were initiated in respect of addition made on account of belated remittance of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI but paid within

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

139(1) for the year under consideration despite having taxable income is deemed to have concealed the particulars of income for that particular assessment year notwithstanding the fact that the assessee filed return of income pursuant to notice u/s. 148 of the Act in terms of provisions of Explanation 3 to 4 Christudanam Yassaya section 271

SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

139(4) of the Act. In view of this, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s. 147 of the Act and accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued. The assessee had also not filed any return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Thereafter, notices u/s

FRANCIS LISTON,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NONCORPORATE WARD 2(1), KOCHI, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, the “the Act”), date of order 22/07/2025 for Assessment year 2011-12. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Non-Corp. Ward-2(1), Kochi (for brevity, the “Ld. AO”) passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 19/08/2016

KANICHUKULANGARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KANICHUKULANGARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

penalty of INR.55,271 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and INR.1,75,857 (Assessment year 2020-2021) levied upon the Assessee under Section 270A of the Act. In result, Ground raised by the Assessee in appeal for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 and 2020-2021 is allowed.” 5. Ld.DR argued and stand in favour of the revenue authority. 6. We have

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015- 16. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015- 16. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015- 16. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for AY 2015- 16. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by the assessing authority and the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs. 60,88,820/-. Based on the addition made, the assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

AKM ERECTORS,ERNAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochi (hereinafter called "the AO") based on the information that the appellant had a substantial contract receipts formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s