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)

u/s 271(1)(c) (INR) (INR) 3,73,478 3,73,478 (2012-2013) 5,76,636 5,76,636 (2013-2014) 2,34,054 2,34,054 (2014-2015) 13. Since there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds raised by the Assessee are identical, our finding and adjudication in relation

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) (INR) (INR) 3,73,478 3,73,478 (2012-2013) 5,76,636 5,76,636 (2013-2014) 2,34,054 2,34,054 (2014-2015) 13. Since there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds raised by the Assessee are identical, our finding and adjudication in relation

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) (INR) (INR) 3,73,478 3,73,478 (2012-2013) 5,76,636 5,76,636 (2013-2014) 2,34,054 2,34,054 (2014-2015) 13. Since there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds raised by the Assessee are identical, our finding and adjudication in relation

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) (INR) (INR) 3,73,478 3,73,478 (2012-2013) 5,76,636 5,76,636 (2013-2014) 2,34,054 2,34,054 (2014-2015) 13. Since there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds raised by the Assessee are identical, our finding and adjudication in relation

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) (INR) (INR) 3,73,478 3,73,478 (2012-2013) 5,76,636 5,76,636 (2013-2014) 2,34,054 2,34,054 (2014-2015) 13. Since there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds raised by the Assessee are identical, our finding and adjudication in relation

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) (INR) (INR) 3,73,478 3,73,478 (2012-2013) 5,76,636 5,76,636 (2013-2014) 2,34,054 2,34,054 (2014-2015) 13. Since there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds raised by the Assessee are identical, our finding and adjudication in relation

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/-.

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and In law the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)( c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is against the principles of judicial consistency and therefore, bad in law. 3. That the order passed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is void ab intitio deserves

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

19-10- 2023 during the first appellateproceedings, wherein reference was made to the case law Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi, (2002) 255 ITR 258 (SC), where the apex courtheld that the legislature has given 11 ITA No.165 & 54/Coch/2024. Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust. discretion to the authority in the matter of levy of penalty under Section 271D

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

19-10- 2023 during the first appellateproceedings, wherein reference was made to the case law Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi, (2002) 255 ITR 258 (SC), where the apex courtheld that the legislature has given 11 ITA No.165 & 54/Coch/2024. Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust. discretion to the authority in the matter of levy of penalty under Section 271D

DY.CIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR, THRISSUR vs. ARUN MAJEED, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur .......... Appellant [Pan: Adopa9351R] Vs. Arun Majeed .......... Respondent Palak Velyannur Temple Road Veliyannur, Thrissur 680021 Appellant By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: ------- None ------- Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

2 Arun Majeed search seizure operations were conducted in the residential premises of the assessee u/s. 132 of the Act on 18.12.2013. Consequently the AO issued notice u/s. 153A of the Act. In response to the notice u/s. 153A, the appellant filed return of income on 30.03.2016 disclosing total income of Rs. 8,53,43,930/- by disclosing additional income

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)

section 271(1)(c), i.e., 8 Prakash R. Nair v. Dy.CIT, Central Circle concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, under which the impugned penalty stands levied 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM vs. ISLAMIC LEARNING MISSION TRUST, KERALA

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred into interpretation of section 11(1)(d) of Income Tax i.e donation should be voluntary and specific directions should be given that they shall form part of corpus of trust. In the instant case the receipts were not specific, hence disallowance made and penalty levied. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

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

PANAMARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PANAMARAM, WAYANAD vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

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

u/s. 271D & 271E for the reasons that there were no banks operating in and around Wayanad district. Thus, there was a reasonable cause for accepting deposits from members for repaying the deposits in cash. After Panamaram Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. considering the written submission we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned

PANAMARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,PANAMARAM vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

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

u/s. 271D & 271E for the reasons that there were no banks operating in and around Wayanad district. Thus, there was a reasonable cause for accepting deposits from members for repaying the deposits in cash. After Panamaram Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. considering the written submission we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned

KOYAMU KAKKAT,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Koyamu Kakkat .......... Appellant K.K. House, Odayalathodi, Kallithodi Road Chungam, Feroke, Kozhikode 673631 [Pan: Bxypk2972H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kozhikode ......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

penalty of Rs. 19,60,490/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 24.03.2005. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 6. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose

M/S. VIJAYALAXMICASHEW CO.,,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Vijayalaxmi Cashew Company Acit, Circle - 1 Kochupilammoodu Kollam Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan: Aagfv8028B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”) for an amount of Rs. 1,20,525/- being 100% the amount of tax sought to evaded. 3. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee is making sales of cashew nuts to its sister concern at a price less than the cost of production. Accordingly

SALIM MOHAMMED KABEER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, both appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and thereby upheld the penalty order passed by the Ld. AO. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us.4. During the appeal before us the Ld.AR submitted the paper book containing pages of 1- 89, which is kept in record. The Ld.AR stated that the assessee was not allowed to submit the evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) though reasonable opportunity was denied.

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 143(3) A, 143(3) B of the Act, order passed by National E Assessment Centre, Delhi dated 26.02.2001. 2. Both the appeals are related to penalty as well as quantum intwo different years. Both the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of by the common order. ITA No. 653/COCH/2025 is taken as lead