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/-.

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs. 38,669/-. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: - 2 Smt. Amina Anvar The assessee an individual filed the return of income for AY 2016-17 on 29.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 9,25,430/-. The assessment was reopened and reassessment

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 in the instant case has been proposed on the additional income of Rs.1.02 lakh offered in reassessment. Two, even

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANHAPURAM

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

penalty under sub-section (1) has been initiated; (b) in a case where an assessment or reassessment has the effect

KARIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,THODUPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD-1, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

penalty under Sections 271B and 271F of the Act was also imposed. 3. Aggrieved-by the reassessment completed under Section

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON COP WARD 2(4) & TPS, COCHIN

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, the assessments were completed ex parte under sections147/144 of the Act by making additions on account of undisclosed income. Doing so the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON COP WARD 2(4) & TPS, COCHIN

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, the assessments were completed ex parte under sections147/144 of the Act by making additions on account of undisclosed income. Doing so the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON COP WARD 2(4) & TPS, COCHIN

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, the assessments were completed ex parte under sections147/144 of the Act by making additions on account of undisclosed income. Doing so the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON COP WARD 2(4) & TPS, COCHIN

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, the assessments were completed ex parte under sections147/144 of the Act by making additions on account of undisclosed income. Doing so the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, NON COP WARD 2(4) & TPS, COCHIN

In the result, all the captioned appeals and corresponding stay applications are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, the assessments were completed ex parte under sections147/144 of the Act by making additions on account of undisclosed income. Doing so the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty

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

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. (3) The amount of under-reported income shall be,—.. (4) – (6) (7) The penalty

KOTTAMKARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2, KOLLAM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

penalty in assessee’s case as it had failed to file the relevant tax audit report in the prescribed format before the “due” date as per the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel, on the other hand, clarifies that we are in sec.148 proceedings which culminated in reassessment

KOTTAMKARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2 , KOLLAM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

penalty in assessee’s case as it had failed to file the relevant tax audit report in the prescribed format before the “due” date as per the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel, on the other hand, clarifies that we are in sec.148 proceedings which culminated in reassessment

KOTTAMAKARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2 , KOLLAM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

penalty in assessee’s case as it had failed to file the relevant tax audit report in the prescribed format before the “due” date as per the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel, on the other hand, clarifies that we are in sec.148 proceedings which culminated in reassessment

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

penalty could also be levied with reference to concealment in original assessment proceedings. This position was reiterated again by the 3 judges judgement in the case of CIT vs. Onkar Saran and Sons [1992] 195 ITR 1. In the light of his u/s. 148 of the Act in reassessment

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

penalty could also be levied with reference to concealment in original assessment proceedings. This position was reiterated again by the 3 judges judgement in the case of CIT vs. Onkar Saran and Sons [1992] 195 ITR 1. In the light of his u/s. 148 of the Act in reassessment

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

penalty could also be levied with reference to concealment in original assessment proceedings. This position was reiterated again by the 3 judges judgement in the case of CIT vs. Onkar Saran and Sons [1992] 195 ITR 1. In the light of his u/s. 148 of the Act in reassessment

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

penalty could also be levied with reference to concealment in original assessment proceedings. This position was reiterated again by the 3 judges judgement in the case of CIT vs. Onkar Saran and Sons [1992] 195 ITR 1. In the light of his u/s. 148 of the Act in reassessment

AVINISSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO R 689,ANAKALLU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoand Shri Sonjoy Sarma

reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 31.12.2019, determining a total income of Rs.1,56,08,560. During the proceedings, it was observed that the assessee failed to furnish the audit report within the due date as prescribed under section 139(1), without any reasonable cause. Accordingly, penalty

YENKEY ROLLER FLOUR MILLS,CALICUT vs. DCIT C-1(1), KOZHIKKODE

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

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

reassessment proceedings was sought to be reopened after expiry of a period of 4 years. Proviso to section 149 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant point of time, provides that no assessment shall be reopened after the expiry of a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is failure