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

undisclosed income, the assessment u/s.l53A to be framed only as per original assessment and there cannot be any M/s.Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour. ITA Nos. 302 to 308/Coch/2010 & 269 to 275/coch/2010 M/s. Matha Enterprises. further addition on the already assessed income. In other words, he submitted that if there is no incriminating material or any other evidence, the assessment

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

undisclosed income, the assessment u/s.l53A to be framed only as per original assessment and there cannot be any M/s.Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour. ITA Nos. 302 to 308/Coch/2010 & 269 to 275/coch/2010 M/s. Matha Enterprises. further addition on the already assessed income. In other words, he submitted that if there is no incriminating material or any other evidence, the assessment

DCIT, ERNAKULAM vs. MATHA ENTERPRISES, ANGAMALLY

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

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

undisclosed income, the assessment u/s.l53A to be framed only as per original assessment and there cannot be any M/s.Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour. ITA Nos. 302 to 308/Coch/2010 & 269 to 275/coch/2010 M/s. Matha Enterprises. further addition on the already assessed income. In other words, he submitted that if there is no incriminating material or any other evidence, the assessment

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,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

undisclosed income, the assessment u/s.l53A to be framed only as per original assessment and there cannot be any M/s.Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour. ITA Nos. 302 to 308/Coch/2010 & 269 to 275/coch/2010 M/s. Matha Enterprises. further addition on the already assessed income. In other words, he submitted that if there is no incriminating material or any other evidence, the assessment

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,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

undisclosed income, the assessment u/s.l53A to be framed only as per original assessment and there cannot be any M/s.Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour. ITA Nos. 302 to 308/Coch/2010 & 269 to 275/coch/2010 M/s. Matha Enterprises. further addition on the already assessed income. In other words, he submitted that if there is no incriminating material or any other evidence, the assessment

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.

reassess total income taking note of undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search. "20. A question may arise as to how this

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

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

undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (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 (6) or sub-section (7), where under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof

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

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