M/S.POPULAR FINANCE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

reassessment proceedings u/s. 263 pending till the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Shri Arun Thomas & Shri Thomas Thomas for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per law. 4. Against this the assessees are in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeals: 1. The order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

41,29,750/- against the\noriginal return of income of Rs. 7,18,19,852/-. Against the said\nreturn of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide\norder dated 29.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act at\ntotal income of Rs. 9,48,70,560/- after making addition of Rs.\n7,40,810/- on account

SRI. ELDHOSE K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THEDCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

41,514 2009-10 29/01/2011 1,73,046 2010-11 14/02/2011 1,88,056 All these returns were processed under section 143(1) as the time for issuing the notices under section 143(2) has expired. The returns for the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 were filed on 15/03/2012 and 19/11/2013 declaring an income of Rs.5

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

41,29,750/- against the original return of income of Rs. 7,18,19,852/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 29.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act at total income of Rs. 9,48,70,560/- after making addition of Rs. 7,40,810/- on account

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

41,29,750/- against the original return of income of Rs. 7,18,19,852/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 29.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act at total income of Rs. 9,48,70,560/- after making addition of Rs. 7,40,810/- on account

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

41,29,750/- against the original return of income of Rs. 7,18,19,852/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 29.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act at total income of Rs. 9,48,70,560/- after making addition of Rs. 7,40,810/- on account

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

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

41,29,750/- against the original return of income of Rs. 7,18,19,852/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 29.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act at total income of Rs. 9,48,70,560/- after making addition of Rs. 7,40,810/- on account

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 referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

41 ITR (Trib) 465) (Bangalore) 2. Deepak Kumar Patwari vs. ACIT, Central Circle X-Kolkata (ITA Nos. 616 to 618/Kol/2013 dt. 3.2.2016) ( ITAT, Kolkata) 3. Dr. Sarita Milind Davare vs. ACIT CC-40 (ITA No. 2187/Mum/2014 dt. 21/12/2016 )(ITAT Mumbai E Bench) 4. Jahangir Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1261/Mum/2011-ITAT, Mumbai) 5. Orbit Enterprises vs. ITO, Mumbai (ITA Nos. 1596 & 1597/Mum/2014

MR.BABU MATHEW,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

41 ITR (Trib) 465) (Bangalore) 2. Deepak Kumar Patwari vs. ACIT, Central Circle X-Kolkata (ITA Nos. 616 to 618/Kol/2013 dt. 3.2.2016) ( ITAT, Kolkata) 3. Dr. Sarita Milind Davare vs. ACIT CC-40 (ITA No. 2187/Mum/2014 dt. 21/12/2016 )(ITAT Mumbai E Bench) 4. Jahangir Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1261/Mum/2011-ITAT, Mumbai) 5. Orbit Enterprises vs. ITO, Mumbai (ITA Nos. 1596 & 1597/Mum/2014

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub- section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub- section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made

KK LEISURE & TOURISM INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,KANNUR vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub- section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41,259/- resulting in an overnight increase of Rs.80,70,944/-. Since income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.3,36,88,962/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued.” 3. In the assessment year 2009-10, the reason recorded is as follows

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41,259/- resulting in an overnight increase of Rs.80,70,944/-. Since income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.3,36,88,962/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued.” 3. In the assessment year 2009-10, the reason recorded is as follows

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41,259/- resulting in an overnight increase of Rs.80,70,944/-. Since income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.3,36,88,962/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued.” 3. In the assessment year 2009-10, the reason recorded is as follows

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41,259/- resulting in an overnight increase of Rs.80,70,944/-. Since income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.3,36,88,962/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued.” 3. In the assessment year 2009-10, the reason recorded is as follows

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

reassess total income of these six years. In this respect also, the word used is 'shall' and, therefore, the Assessing Officer has no option but to assess or reassess the total income of these six years. The pending proceedings shall abate. This means that out of six years, if any assessment or reassessment is pending on the date of initiation