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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay, was neither deliberate nor intentional but\noccurred due to bona fide reasons, and thus deserved to be condoned in the\ninterest of substantial justice.\n2. Without prejudice to the above, that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating\nthat the assessment order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the National\nFaceless Assessment Centre [“Assessing Officer”] u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the\nAct

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

In the result, the assessee succeeds on the legal ground

Section 5 of the Limitation Act and\nanalogous provisions must be construed liberally so as to advance substantial\njustice. The Court emphasized that rejection of condonation applications on\ntrivial or fault-finding grounds should be avoided, particularly where negligence,\nlack of bona fides, or intentional delay cannot reasonably be attributed to the\nlitigant.\n-7-\nITA. No:3049/Chny/2025\n15. Further

MAVILAI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD KV 92,KANYAKUMARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1, NAGERCOIL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

condone the delay in filing\nthe appeal and now proceed to hear the case on merits.\n3. At the outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee has raised an additional ground\nrelating to jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (‘JAO') in the light of\nthe CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras\nHigh Court

ANNAI KANTHAMMAL RAMACHANDRAN EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,KRISHNAGIRI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD,, SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

condone the delay in filing the appeal and now proceed to hear the case on merits. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee has raised an additional ground relating to jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (‘JAO’) in the light of the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 and the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court

ARULMIGU LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY THIRUKOIL,VELLORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay of 297 days, which was condoned by the tribunal. The primary issue was the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 by the jurisdictional assessing officer.", "held": "The Tribunal held that following the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd and the Madras High Court in the present case, the notice issued under Section

VENUGOPAL RAVICHANDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 19(6)M CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2121/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Venugopal Ravichandran Income Tax Officer, Old No.5, New No.7, Bhavani Street, Non Corp Ward-19(6), Bharathi Nagar, Tharamani, Ttti, Chennai. Taramani S.O, Taramani, Chennai-600 113. [Pan: Adypr7701G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman,Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT(A) have passed ex-parte orders in its case. It was stated that order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 19.01.2024 was passed by the Ld.AO whereby an addition of Rs.34,93,120/- and Rs.7000

GANAPATHI KANAGASABAI,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD 1, VELLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit the\nappeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.\n3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and\nregistered stamp paper vendor and had not filed his return of income for\nΑ.Υ.2018-19. Based on the information to verify the transactions made by the\nassessee into

ARAVINDAN RENGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3297/Chny/2025 & S.A No.115/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Aravindan Rengasamy, The Asst. Commissioner Of Income C/O. Sundaram & Narayanan, Vs. Tax (International Taxation), Chartered Accountants, Madurai. 18 Balaiah Avenune, Luz Churchroad, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Apupr 6827B

151A r.w. Notification No.S.O. 1466E dt. 29.03.2022. b) 148A(b) notice dt. 06.03.2023 is invalid since admittedly only less than 7 days (namely up to 11.03.2023) was given to the assessee to reply, which is opposed to the provisions of section 148A(b). c) Provisions of section 127 r.w.s. 129 are not complied with since the 148 notice

SHANMUGAM CHINNIA GOUNDER,COIMBATORE vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 1(1), COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms\nabove

condoned.\n2. Exemption Application is allowed.\n3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the\nRevenue and having gone through the materials on record, we find no\ngood reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High\nCourt.\n3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending\napplications, if any, shall also stand disposed

KGN FITNESS & DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-4(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

condoning the delay in filing the quantum appeal with a delay of 296 days and penalty appeal with a delay of 11 days, stating that the assessee has not shown “sufficient cause” for delay. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld.AR for the assessee referred to the notice

KGN FITNESS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-4(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

condoning the delay in filing the quantum appeal with a delay of 296 days and penalty appeal with a delay of 11 days, stating that the assessee has not shown “sufficient cause” for delay. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld.AR for the assessee referred to the notice

SA FEEDS,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms\nabove

condoned.\n2. Exemption Application is allowed.\n3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners – Revenue and\nhaving gone through the materials on record, we find no good reason to interfere\nwith the impugned order passed by the High Court.\n3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending applications, if\nany, shall also stand disposed

VLSPL 136 VANGLOOR PACCS,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VELLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2609/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Vlspl 136 Vangloor Primary The Ito, Agricultural Coop. Credit Society, Ward-1, Vlspl 136 Vangloor Pacb, Vellore. Walajapet, Vellore-632 513. [Pan: Aabav 0564 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condoned. 2. Exemption Application is allowed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners – Revenue and having gone through the materials on record, we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. 3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed

DGL DIST GOVT TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,DINDIGUL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DINDIGUL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms\nabove

condoned.\n2. Exemption Application is allowed.\nITA No.341/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20)\nDGL Dist Govt Teachers Cooperative S Ltd Vs ITO\n:: 6 ::\n3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners\nRevenue and having gone through the materials on record, we find no\ngood reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High\nCourt.\n3. The Special

SUDHA,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-4,, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2360/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Sudha, The Ito, 4-254, Panchayat Street, Ward-4, Avaraikulam, Tirunelveli. Radhapuram, Tirunelveli-627 133. [Pan: Gbtps 0255 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condoned. 2. Exemption Application is allowed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners – Revenue and having gone through the materials on record, we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. 3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed

VISWANATHAN PAPPATHI,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-2,, VELLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1620/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Viswanathan Pappathi Income Tax Officer No. 24C, Pudupet Road, Vs. Ward – 2, 4Th Street, Tirupattur, Vellore. Vellore – 635 601. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Ceqpp-4595-H] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Rajakumar, Addl. C.I.T.

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee T.V.Muthu Abirami, Advocate for the assessee has raised an additional ground relating to jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (‘JAO’) in the light of the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 and the decision

MANORANJANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

condone delay in filing of appeals and admit the appeals filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, runs petrol bunk in the name of M/s.Balasundram Agency and has filed her return of income on 28.07.2017 for A.Y.2017-18, by admitting income of Rs.6,31,420/-. Based on the information

ALBERT SHEELA,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VELLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed her return of income for the A.Y.2015-16. Based on the information available with the department, the AO found that the assessee has received contract receipts

VELLAISAMY NATARAJAN,PUDHUKURICHI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARAIKUDI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

condoning the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in present appeal before us. 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee referred to the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 24.03.2023 and order under Clause (d) of section 148A of the Act, dated