H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search of job and I got employment

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search of job and I got employment

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search of job and I got employment

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search of job and I got employment

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search of job and I got employment

MR. N. NACHIMUTHU,SALEM vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L Reddy

condone the delay of 131 days caused before the CIT (Appeals) in filing the appeal and we remit the issue raised by the assessee with regard to addition made under Section

MOHAMED HUSSAIN MAHAMED HARISAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-5(5), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Harissi, 10, Nethaji Nagar, Iind Street Non Corporate Ward 5(5), Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Apepm2204H] (Petitioner By) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Petitioner By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Both Dated 01.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11 & 2011-12. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 277 Days Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. By Filing Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Explained As Under:

condone the delay in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Brief fact of the case are that the case was reopened for the assessment year 2010-11 manually for the aggregation of cash deposits of ₹.1,17,46,900/- made in SB account with M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. during 3 I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/19 the financial year

MOHAMED HUSSAIN MAHAMED HARISAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-5(5), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Harissi, 10, Nethaji Nagar, Iind Street Non Corporate Ward 5(5), Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Apepm2204H] (Petitioner By) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Petitioner By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Both Dated 01.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11 & 2011-12. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 277 Days Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. By Filing Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Explained As Under:

condone the delay in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Brief fact of the case are that the case was reopened for the assessment year 2010-11 manually for the aggregation of cash deposits of ₹.1,17,46,900/- made in SB account with M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. during 3 I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/19 the financial year

M/S. INDO NATIONAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORP CRICLE -2(2). CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

condone the delay of ‘93’ days and proceed to adjudicate both the appeals on merits. adjudicate both the appeals on merits. 3. First, First, we we will will take take up up appeal appeal for for AY AY 2015 2015-16 in ITA No.1404/Chny/2023. It is noted that Ground no.1 is general in nature, . It is noted that Ground no.1

M/S. INDO NATIONAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT COPRATE CRICLE-2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

condone the delay of ‘93’ days and proceed to adjudicate both the appeals on merits. adjudicate both the appeals on merits. 3. First, First, we we will will take take up up appeal appeal for for AY AY 2015 2015-16 in ITA No.1404/Chny/2023. It is noted that Ground no.1 is general in nature, . It is noted that Ground no.1

R. ANBUVEL RAJAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL RANGEL, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

condone the delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee. adjudicate the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee. 3. Before adverting to the grounds raised in these appeals, it is first Before adverting to the grounds raised in these appeals, it is first Before adverting

R. ANBUVEL RAJAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL RANGE 1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

condone the delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee. adjudicate the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee. 3. Before adverting to the grounds raised in these appeals, it is first Before adverting to the grounds raised in these appeals, it is first Before adverting

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

condone the delay and the\nappeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.\nAppeal in respect of the assessment order dated 01.03.2019 in ITA\nNo.:1271/Chny/2025:\n3.\nThe brief facts of the case are as follows:\nThe assessee is an individual and is the daughter of Shri. S.Jagathrakshakan.\nA search was conducted u/s.132 of the Act, in the premises of Shri.Jagathrakshakan

AA 293 PANAHALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ERODE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2020, 2021 & 2022/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ward 2(1), 1, Panakkahally, Thalavady Post, Erode. Erode 638 461. [Pan: Aacaa1566A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 27.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Act & Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272(1)(D) Of The Act By Rejecting The Prayer Of Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A).

131 either to attend to give evidence or produce books of account or other documents at a certain place and time omits to attend or produce books of account or documents at the place or time; or (d) fails to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or fails

AA 293 PANAHALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ERODE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2020, 2021 & 2022/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ward 2(1), 1, Panakkahally, Thalavady Post, Erode. Erode 638 461. [Pan: Aacaa1566A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 27.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Act & Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272(1)(D) Of The Act By Rejecting The Prayer Of Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A).

131 either to attend to give evidence or produce books of account or other documents at a certain place and time omits to attend or produce books of account or documents at the place or time; or (d) fails to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or fails

AA 293 PANAHALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ERODE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2020, 2021 & 2022/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ward 2(1), 1, Panakkahally, Thalavady Post, Erode. Erode 638 461. [Pan: Aacaa1566A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 27.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Act & Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272(1)(D) Of The Act By Rejecting The Prayer Of Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A).

131 either to attend to give evidence or produce books of account or other documents at a certain place and time omits to attend or produce books of account or documents at the place or time; or (d) fails to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or fails

S.G. SRINIVASAN,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, VELLORE

In the result, the grounds of

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahays.G. Srinivasan, I.T.O., No. 15, Venkatramana Vs. Ward-1, Vellore Bhagavathar Street, Walajapet, No. 2, Barracks Cross Street, Vellore-632513. Officers Line, Vellore, Tamil Pan No. Belps 3581 L Nadu-632001. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condone the delay of 219 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the same for hearing. 5. On merit of the case, the brief facts of the case are that the department received information from the system that the assessee Shri S.G. Srinivasan, Proprietor M/s Akash Cotton Yarn waste, No. 15, Venkatramana Bagavathar Street, Walajapet has made

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,KARUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

condoned. In respect of the remaining assessees, there is no delay in filing the appeals, and proof of receipt of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) has been duly enclosed with Form No. 36.\nFurther, since all the 61 appeals arise out of the same search proceedings, and the issues involved therein are common, identical, and interconnected, the appeals