YOONUS KADAVATH PEEDIKAYIL,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

section 274 of granting reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, it explained, could not be stretched to the extent of framing a specific charge. As explained earlier in CIT v. Manu Engineering Works[1980] 122 ITR 306 (Guj), the use of the words ‘and/or’, i.e., between the two charges, being ‘concealment of particulars of income’ and ‘furnishing inaccurate

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

20 occasions, the assessee has violated the provision on four occasions at the rate of one event in the case of each lender. Thus, we observe that the assessee has mostly repaid the loans by way of crossed cheque and complied with the statute. The reason explained by the assessee was that it has made the payment on the request

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

20 occasions, the assessee has violated the provision on four occasions at the rate of one event in the case of each lender. Thus, we observe that the assessee has mostly repaid the loans by way of crossed cheque and complied with the statute. The reason explained by the assessee was that it has made the payment on the request

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act vide notice u/s. 274 of even date: 2 Prakash R. Nair v. Dy.CIT, Central Circle i. Claim for deduction u/s 80IA(Rs.68,82,867/-) was rejected. ii. Bank interest of Rs. 3,13,508/- was assessed as ‘Income from Other Sources’. iii. The claim for deduction u/s 80HHC was restricted with reference to section

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

20,000 aggregating and otherwise at any point of time, as given above, penalty provisions of section 271D and section 271E of the Income-tax Act are attracted. Accordingly, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D and section 271E." This was followed by notice u/s. 274 of the Act by the Jt. CIT, show causing the assessee in the matter

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

20,000 aggregating and otherwise at any point of time, as given above, penalty provisions of section 271D and section 271E of the Income-tax Act are attracted. Accordingly, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271D and section 271E." This was followed by notice u/s. 274 of the Act by the Jt. CIT, show causing the assessee in the matter

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

P R SUDEEP,ALATHUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Aroraand Shri Manomohan Dasp.R. Sudeep Dy. Cit, Parakkal Bharath Gas Agencies Central Circle Bank Road, Alathur Vs. Thrissur Palakkad 678541 [Pan:Axsps7870B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:27.09.2023 O R D E R Persanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’)For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Levied Per Order Dated 28.6.2017, In First Appeal By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi-3 [Cit(A)], Vide His Order Dated 01.01.2021. 2. The Assessee’S Case Before Us & The Only One At That, Was That The Penalty Is Not Maintainable As Its Initiation, Upon Expressing Satisfaction In Its Respect In The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2016, By Issue Of Show Cause Notice U/S. 274 Of Even Date, Is Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Is Qua Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C), No Longer Applicable For Search Cases, I.E.,01/7/2007 Onwards & Not As U/S. 271Aab Of The Act, Where The Search Is Initiated On Or After 01/7/2012 & For Which We Were Taken By Sh. Venkitaraman, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Through Sections 271 And271Aab Of The Act, As Well As The Impugned Notice (Pb Pg. 24).

penalty for undisclosed income; the latter being only qua search cases, under which category the assessee’s case undisputedly falls. The notice u/s. 274 r/ws. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot, therefore, i.e., in view of section 292B, be regarded as defective. What, then, we wonder, is the controversy about; the assessee being only aware that the correct 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

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

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

20,952/-. 12. Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. 13. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi dated 22.07.2022 for AY 2007-08 confirming the levy of penalty. 14. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The return

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

20,952/-. 12. Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. 13. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi dated 22.07.2022 for AY 2007-08 confirming the levy of penalty. 14. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The return

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

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)

20. The Ld.AR further submitted that only the certain expenses were disallowed by the Ld. AO in assessment proceeding. The Ld. AR argued for deletion of penalty U/s 270A of the Act. 4. Ld.AR respectfully relied on the order of coordinate Bench of ITAT Cochin in the case of Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer