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.

2 Yoonus Kadavath Peedikayil vs. ITO indeed in the penalty order, has been pointed out by the assessee, and on which the Revenue places reliance. As regards the non-strike off of one of the two defaults for which the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is levied, the notice u/s. 274 only seeks to provide an opportunity for being heard

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)

penalty proceedings u/s. 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

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/-.

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act ( notice dated 30.12.2019) was issued for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income”. However, we noticed the penalty has been imposed vide order dated 10.02.2022 by referring to the first limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act namely “concealment particulars of income”. Initiation of penalty on one of the limb

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

274 read with section 271(1)(c) considering the original demand on ESOP income not declared in the return. Assessee has submitted reply to penalty notice explaining the circumstances under which he did not offer the ESOP Page 3 of 7 perquisite to tax.. However, penalty order dated 2407-2014 was issued demanding a penalty

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

2 ITANos. 248 & 249/Coch/2020 (AY: 2015-16) The Karannur Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. ITO 4.1 The assessee’s case qua limitation was as: (i) penalty being caused to be initiated on 13.12.2017, the first limb of section 275(1)(c) of the Act shall yield the limitation date as 31.03.2018. (ii) the second would be six months after

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

2 ITANos. 248 & 249/Coch/2020 (AY: 2015-16) The Karannur Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. ITO 4.1 The assessee’s case qua limitation was as: (i) penalty being caused to be initiated on 13.12.2017, the first limb of section 275(1)(c) of the Act shall yield the limitation date as 31.03.2018. (ii) the second would be six months after

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.

274/-. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the penalty order passed u/s 271 E of the Income Tax Act, when the said order was time barred by limitation of time. The assessment or er is passed on 26.12.2017 and the penalty u/s 271 E should have been levied before the end of the year, 31st March

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.

274/-. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the penalty order passed u/s 271 E of the Income Tax Act, when the said order was time barred by limitation of time. The assessment or er is passed on 26.12.2017 and the penalty u/s 271 E should have been levied before the end of the year, 31st March

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

HERCULES AUTOMOBILES INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. AO TYPE-W, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ALLEPPEY

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hercules Automobiles International P. Ltd. .......... Appellant Tc No.16/1860, Dpi Road, Thycaud S.O. Chempakassery, Thiruvananthapuram 695014 [Pan: Aabcn2898M] Vs. Dcit, Circle - 1, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Jose Zachariah, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide show cause notice dated 30.12.2019 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant filed explanation and the same was rejected by the AO and proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs. 6,74,882/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. RAJAKUMARI SHOPPING AMALL LLP, ATTINGAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavan, Kawdiar, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Rajkumari Shopping Mall Llp ......... Respondent Amc 11/556, City Plaza, Nh Road Attingal 695101 [Pan: Aaqfr1222B] Assessee By: Shri V.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was assessed u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, passed on 30/03/2023. The addition was confirmed u/s 68 of the Act related to unexplained credit amount to Rs.9,56,04,655/-. The Ld.AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) / 274 of the Act and income

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

274. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made— (a) by the Income-tax Officer, where the penalty exceeds ten thousand rupees; (b) by the Assistant Commissioner

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).

2. The assessee’s case before us, and 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

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

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In response to the show cause notice the appellant filed explanation stating that mere disallowance of claim does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, no penalty can be levied. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide

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

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

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs. 13,035/- vide order dated 27.03.2025 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the penalty. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present

THEKKINIAN PAULOSE VARKEY,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is defective as the show cause notice does not specify the limb on which the penalty is being levied, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. SSAs Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248. It is further submitted that since the appellant

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

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response to the show cause notice the appellant file an explanation. However, the AO had proceeded with the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,08,3326/- vide order dated 28.03.2018 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide

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

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response to the show cause notice the appellant file an explanation. However, the AO had proceeded with the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,08,3326/- vide order dated 28.03.2018 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide