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

undisclosed income of the block period, a separate form is provided for filing return of income for a block period, in the instant scheme of assessment of search cases, there is no separate form prescribed by the legislature, which means in a new scheme assessment of each assessment year in consequent to search, the appellant has to file his return

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

undisclosed income of the block period, a separate form is provided for filing return of income for a block period, in the instant scheme of assessment of search cases, there is no separate form prescribed by the legislature, which means in a new scheme assessment of each assessment year in consequent to search, the appellant has to file his return

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

undisclosed income of the block period, a separate form is provided for filing return of income for a block period, in the instant scheme of assessment of search cases, there is no separate form prescribed by the legislature, which means in a new scheme assessment of each assessment year in consequent to search, the appellant has to file his return

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

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein it has been held that there is no such requirement of incriminating material to assess or reassess

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein it has been held that there is no such requirement of incriminating material to assess or reassess

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein it has been held that there is no such requirement of incriminating material to assess or reassess

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein it has been held that there is no such requirement of incriminating material to assess or reassess

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein it has been held that there is no such requirement of incriminating material to assess or reassess

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein it has been held that there is no such requirement of incriminating material to assess or reassess

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein it has been held that there is no such requirement of incriminating material to assess or reassess

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

undisclosed income of the block period, a\nseparate form is provided for filing return of income for a block period, in the\ninstant scheme of assessment of search cases, there is no separate form prescribed\nby the legislature, which means in a new scheme assessment of each assessment\nyear in consequent to search, the appellant has to file his return

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

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A. 4.3 The law in the matter, which would therefore need to be applied, is by now well-settled per a series of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court, viz., Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr.CIT

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

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A. 4.3 The law in the matter, which would therefore need to be applied, is by now well-settled per a series of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court, viz., Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr.CIT

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

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A. 4.3 The law in the matter, which would therefore need to be applied, is by now well-settled per a series of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court, viz., Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr.CIT

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

reassessment proceedings, it was observed on the verification of the cash flow statement and statement of income filed by the assessee, it 3 ITA No.355/Coch/2024. Sri.Sahul Hameed. was observed that the assessee has shown an income of INR 8,50,000 under the head “Income from Other Sources”, which was not duly explained by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

undisclosed income of the person searched is found in search (or on requisition), no assessment u/s. 153A could ensue. A sec. 153C assessment, which obtains in the instant case, is only on the basis of material found during the search or through requisition, so that the decision in Abhishar Buildwell (supra) does not impinge thereon. Reliance thereon is misplaced. Further

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

undisclosed income of the person searched is found in search (or on requisition), no assessment u/s. 153A could ensue. A sec. 153C assessment, which obtains in the instant case, is only on the basis of material found during the search or through requisition, so that the decision in Abhishar Buildwell (supra) does not impinge thereon. Reliance thereon is misplaced. Further