JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

condonation of delay in filing the original return u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act and during the process of examining, the correctness of the claim to facilitate the report by the AO, it came to light that while the claim of deduction u/s.54EC was found to be in order, the claim of deduction u/s.54F to the tune of ITA No.567

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

condonation\nunder section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Id. CIT(E). The Id. CIT(E)\ncondoned the said delay in filing Form 10A vide his order dated\n30.11.2016 and referred to page 82 of the paper book. He vehemently\nargued that the Assessing Officer, considering all the details, accepted\nthe returned income and formed an opinion that

SUDARSANAM BHASKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(3), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3657/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19

condone the delay of in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The Ld. AR at the outset submitted that the notice under section 148 of the Act which is dated 21.04.2022 is beyond the period of 03 years and therefore as per the provisions of Section 151 of the Act the AO should have obtained

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

2. The learned CIT (A) fundamentally failed to appreciate that the AC lacks jurisdiction since the conditions for invoking section 144 is not satisfied and hence the whole assessment is nullity in law. 3. The learned CIT(A) fundamentally failed to appreciate that the ingredients to invoke section 144 are singularly absent since the appellant has replied to the notice

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

2. The learned CIT (A) fundamentally failed to appreciate that the AC lacks jurisdiction since the conditions for invoking section 144 is not satisfied and hence the whole assessment is nullity in law. 3. The learned CIT(A) fundamentally failed to appreciate that the ingredients to invoke section 144 are singularly absent since the appellant has replied to the notice

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

2. The learned CIT (A) fundamentally failed to appreciate that the AC lacks jurisdiction since the conditions for invoking section 144 is not satisfied and hence the whole assessment is nullity in law. 3. The learned CIT(A) fundamentally failed to appreciate that the ingredients to invoke section 144 are singularly absent since the appellant has replied to the notice

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

2. The learned CIT (A) fundamentally failed to appreciate that the AC lacks jurisdiction since the conditions for invoking section 144 is not satisfied and hence the whole assessment is nullity in law. 3. The learned CIT(A) fundamentally failed to appreciate that the ingredients to invoke section 144 are singularly absent since the appellant has replied to the notice

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

2. The learned CIT (A) fundamentally failed to appreciate that the AC lacks jurisdiction since the conditions for invoking section 144 is not satisfied and hence the whole assessment is nullity in law. 3. The learned CIT(A) fundamentally failed to appreciate that the ingredients to invoke section 144 are singularly absent since the appellant has replied to the notice

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

2. The learned CIT (A) fundamentally failed to appreciate that the AC lacks jurisdiction since the conditions for invoking section 144 is not satisfied and hence the whole assessment is nullity in law. 3. The learned CIT(A) fundamentally failed to appreciate that the ingredients to invoke section 144 are singularly absent since the appellant has replied to the notice

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

delay, was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide reasons, and thus deserved to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. 2. Without prejudice to the above, that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [“Assessing Officer”] u/s.147 r.w.s

NATARAJAN,CUDDALORE vs. ITO,ITWARD-1(1) , CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.123/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-2012 Shri Natarajan The Income Tax Officer, 353, Pudupettai Main Road, Vs. International Taxation, Indira Nagar, C. Puthupettai, Ward 2(1), Parangipettai Post, Chennai 600 006 Cuddalore 608 502. Pan: Anfpn 9506Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Irs, Jcit.

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - ‘’A. For that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 16, Chennai ["CIT(A)"] and Assessing Officer ("AO"), is erroneous, bad in law, and was passed ignoring the facts and merits of the case, disregarding the evidences and the case

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

condoning the delay in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A). 21. Now coming to the other issues in the case, the assessee has raised the following: 1. That no fresh tangible material was available before the AO for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 2. That the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. AACIT, NCC-11(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

condoning the delay in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A). 21. Now coming to the other issues in the case, the assessee has raised the following: 1. That no fresh tangible material was available before the AO for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 2. That the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI , CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

sections": [ "147", "144", "148", "148A", "149", "151", "132", "143(1)", "69A", "115BBE", "69" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) warrants condonation. 2

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

condoned the delay, we further note that the ground of appeal\nrelating to validity of the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 digitally\nsigned and issued by the JAO on 01.04.2021 urged before us is predominantly\nlegal in nature and go to the very root of the assessment proceedings. It is a\nsettled proposition of law that where

S 1284, THATHAIYANGARPATTY PACCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3171 & 3172/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Vs. Ward-2, Society Ltd., Namakkal. Karaikuruchipudur P.O., Namakkal – 637 018. Pan: Aagas 9153H

2,32,000/-. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit along with petition to condone the delay. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record

S 1284 THATHAIYANGARPATTY PACCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3171 & 3172/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Vs. Ward-2, Society Ltd., Namakkal. Karaikuruchipudur P.O., Namakkal – 637 018. Pan: Aagas 9153H

2,32,000/-. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit along with petition to condone the delay. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record

PARTHASARATHI PRABAKARAN,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-3,, VELLORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3111/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. Parthasarathi Prabakaran :- 3 -: 5. The assessee filed an additional ground before us raised the legal contention that the approval obtained for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has not been obtained from the correct authority as per the provisions of Section 151