ACIT, NUNAGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Integrated Service Point Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 30.12.2025 - : 2 -:

bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 3,02,02,100/- and Rs.4,43,24,430/- respectively under section 37, the addition of unexplained money of Rs.39,22,000/- under section 69A

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 3,02,02,100/- and Rs. 4,43,24,430/- respectively under section 37, the addition of unexplained money of Rs. 39,22,000/- under section 69A

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 3,02,02,100/- and Rs. 4,43,24,430/- respectively under section 37, the addition of unexplained money of Rs. 39,22,000/- under section 69A

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

bogus purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/- c. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of amounts received

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Pvt. Ltd.,) Vs. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

bogus purchases: Rs.4,43,24,430/- c. Unexplained money under section 69A: Rs.39,22,000/- on account of amounts received

MOHAMED THAJUDEEN ABUTHAHIR,SIRKALI CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD 2, , NAGAPATTINAM CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 650/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohamed Thajudeen Abuthahir, The Income Tax Officer, 17, Railway Road, V. Ward-2, Sirkali – 609 110. Nagapattinam. Tamilnadu. [Pan: Afdpa-4979-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

purchase and sale were bogus, made addition under section 69A, Tribunal was not justified in deleting addition without going into

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus purchases and addition under section 69A of the Act for AY 2011-12. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus purchases and addition under section 69A of the Act for AY 2011-12. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee

SOMASUNDARAM VIGNESHWARAN,MADURAI vs. ACIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) -1, MUDARAI, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy, S.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1728/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Somasundaram Vigneshwaran, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Meenakshi Kovil Street, Income Tax, Sri Meenakshi Complex, 1St Floor, Central Circle 1, Madurai 625 001. Madurai. [Pan: Akppv0081K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Adjournment Petition. On Examination Of The Record, It Is Noted That The Assessee Filed This Appeal On 14.06.2025 & After Scrutiny, The Registry, Itat Chennai Benches Issued Notice

bogus and fabricated. Therefore, out of the total seized cash of Rs.2,94,00,000/-, an amount of Rs. 19,80,905/- already assessed protectively u/s 69A of the Act was excluded. The remaining Rs.2,74,19,095/- was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, and added to the assessee's total income

MANIKANDAN SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE ,THIRUMANGALAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1452/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Manikandan Subash Chandra V. Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Bose, Madurai – 625 002. New No. 70 (Old 131), Big Bazaar Street, Thirumangalam – 625 706 [Pan: Abcpm-6497-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Pratap, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

Section 69A and make an addition for the same amounts already assessed under one :-9-: ITA. No: 1452/Chny/2023 head. Further, the Ld.AR in support of the case, relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in the following cases: a) Shri Raju Dinesh Kumar Vs. DCIT – ITA No.1321/2023 dated 19/01/2024 b) M/s.Micky Fireworks Industries Vs. ACIT – ITA No.264/2023 dated 26/07/2023

H.ABUTHAHIR,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.583/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014. Shri. H. Abuthahir, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.11, Rose Garden, Income Tax, Annex 2Nd Cross, Non Corporate Circle 1, South Ukkadam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 001. [Pan Aitpa 0537F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

69A of the Act could not have been used for fixing a higher income when estimated rate of return was adopted. Facts apropos are that assessee engaged in the business of 3. buying and selling of old gold jewellery had filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year disclosing income of "18,35,640/-. In such return, assessee

SREE BALAJI BULLIONS,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2302/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sree Balaji Bullions, Dy. Commissioner Of 22/43, Vasagasalai, Income Tax, Shevapet, V. Circle 1(1), Salem– 636002. Salem. [Pan: Aasfs-5947-E] (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : Shri.S.Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By & N.Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

bogus customers name or the identity of the customer who have purchased jewellery by exchanging old jewellery or by paying cheque or any other bank mode details have been used to conceal the assessee's unaccounted income nor the third party unaccounted money who's identity had not been revealed by way of collection of TCS on cash purchases more

SUNPENTA MINING SERVICE PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3263/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

purchase, as well as the closing stock at the year-end to be genuine and correct. It is also worthwhile to mention that the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) and even there is no whisper in the order about any defects in the books

RAJENDRAN SHARMILA,ANNUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shris.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No 2315/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendran Sharmila 1/66 Main Road, Kariagoundanur Vadakkalur Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641653 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Ito Non Corporate Ward 3(2), Све (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) [Pan: Bicps 3272 D] अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/ Assessee By Mr. K. Muthukumar, Ca प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे / Respondent By Mr. C. Sivakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of 16.02.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Dated 07.07.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Confirming The Addition Of Rs.70,50,000/- Made By The Ao U/S. 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”).

purchase register, and Bank statements, all of which were furnished before the AO. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is engaged in trading business. The sales reflected during the demonetisation period have been recorded in the books of account.The AO has not rejected the books of account u/s. 145 of the Act.The turnover declared by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COIMBATORE vs. MS VISWA AND DEVJI DIAMONDS PVT LTD, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.327/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-2018. The Deputy Commissioner Viswa & Devji Diamonds Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, Vs. New No.16,Old No.239, Corporate Circle 1, T.V.Swamy Road (East) Coimbatore R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. Pan: Aaccv 4942M

section 69A of the IT Act 1961, where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewelry or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers

JCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. TARA JEWELLERY, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 276/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Tara Jewellery, Income-Tax, V. 61, West Bashyakaralu Road, Non-Corporate Circle -2, R S Puram, Aayakar Bhavan, Coimbatore – 641 002. 63, Race Course Road, [Pan: Aagft-2345-B] Coimbatore – 641 018. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant facts has rightly deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer. 12. The appellant has relied upon the decision of ITAT, Chennai Benches in the case of ITO vs Sahana Jewellery Export Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 999/Chny/2022. The coordinate bench of ITAT, Chennai has considered an identical

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-4, COIMBATORE vs. NAVARATNA MAALIGAI, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 801/Chny/2023 & Co No.: 48/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Navaratna Maaligai, Income Tax, V. No. 362, Raja Street, Non-Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 001. Aayakar Bhavan, [Pan: Aaifn-6257-E] 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

69A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant facts rightly deleted additions made by the AO and their order should be upheld. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 2,91,80,000/- into Axis bank

DCIT,NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-2,, COIMBATORE vs. M/S D GEM MOUNT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.782/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. D. Gem Mount, Income Tax, No. 19, Vedapatti Road, Non-Corporate Circle 2, Aayakar Telungupalayam, Bhavan, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore 641 039. Coimbatore 641 018. [Pan:Aaffd8890G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 30.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 32 Days, For Which, The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore Has Filed A Petition In The Form Of An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay Explaining The Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Prayed That 2

69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee and brought to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. 8. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the Assessing Officer has made addition solely on comparison basis. The Assessing Officer has not doubted the purchases made by the assessee anywhere. The audited books

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. AADHITYA FINCORP PVT LTD, CHENNAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

purchase of shares and the sources of such cash payments. 2.6 The Ld. CIT(A) has not observed that the assessee had not adduced any evidence other than the share application ledger which ought to be an afterthought. 2.7 The Ld. CIT(a) erred not observing that incorrect citing of section does not automatically negate the addition itself, as long