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

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

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

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) were initiated for concealment of income. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were finalised by holding the appellant guilty of concealing income and levied penalty of Rs. 91,86,500/-. On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) deleted the penalty by holding that the show cause notice issued by the AO is defective

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

b) by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, where the penalty exceeds twenty thousand rupees, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. (3) An income-tax authority on making an order under this Chapter imposing a penalty, unless he is himself the Assessing Officer, shall forthwith send a copy of such order to the Assessing Officer

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

1)] under 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 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

1)] under 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

BADER SULTAN KAKAD,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, PALAKKAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bader Sultana Kakad .......... Appellant 11/460 Metro Bazar, Market Road Palakkad 678014 [Pan: Agtpb9696A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Palakkad ......... Respondent Assesseeby: Shri Sivadas Chettor, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

u/s 271 (1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of three notices aggregate amount of penalty of Rs. 30,000/-. During the penalty proceeding the assessee made details compliance on dated 04/05/2024in response to notice of the Ld. AO dated 02/05/2024. But the penalty is imposed by the Ld. AO by rejecting the submission of the assessee. Aggrieved

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

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

B. The penalty under section 270A is not legally sustainable since the ingredients thereunder are not satisfied and hence, requires to be set aside. C. The penalty under section 270A cannot be levied merely because the appellant has claimed an exemption in the returns which is unacceptable to the revenue. To this extent, reliance is placed on the decision

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the case of assessment made u/s. 148 of the Act. In our opinion provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) were squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, which reads as under: - “Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271

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

SHALOM CHARITABLE MINISTRIES OF INDIA,PALAKKAD vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), THRISSUR

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

section 44AB is to compute proper taxable income and that purpose is achieved to a larger extent by the audit performed u/s. 12A(1)(b) of the Act. 6) For these amongst other grounds that may be permitted to be raised and additional evidences adduced at the time of hearing or before and it is prayed that justice be done

SHALOM CHARITABLE MINISTRIES OF INDIA,PALAKKAD vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), THRISSUR

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

section 44AB is to compute proper taxable income and that purpose is achieved to a larger extent by the audit performed u/s. 12A(1)(b) of the Act. 6) For these amongst other grounds that may be permitted to be raised and additional evidences adduced at the time of hearing or before and it is prayed that justice be done

THE MANNARKKAD RURAL SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MANNARKKAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and stay application are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember

1) of the Act where the turnover of the assessee’s business exceeds the threshold monetary limit specified therein. Further, where the assessee is required to get it’s accounts audited under any other law for the time being in force, the same is also to be furnished along with. Non-compliance of the provision attracts penalty u/s.271B

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

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.

1), Trivandrumpassed 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

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.

1), Trivandrumpassed 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

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

BHIMA GOLD AND DIAMONDS,ADOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhbhima Gold & Diamonds Assistant Commissioner Of Central Junction Income Tax Vs. Adoor 691523 Kollam [Pan: Aanfb8547J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Heard both parties at length. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the sole substantive ground that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in levying the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.3,83,160/- , it emerges during the course of hearing that