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

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

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

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

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1813/Chny/2025

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that it has challenged the assessment on account of invalidity of notice under section 148. Thus, through ground of appeal No.5 the assessee has challenged the insufficiency of jurisdiction with the Ld.Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to have issued the notice

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

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

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

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

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3366/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shanmugam Chinnia Gounder V. No. 240, Sasthiri Street, Avinashi Road Br Puram, Peelamedu, Coimbatore-641 004 [Pan: Afkpc 1564 Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Ito Ncw 1(1) Све, Annexe Building, Tamil Nadu (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Mr. Abhishek Murali, C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 28.05.2024 For Ay 2018-19.

condoned. 2. Exemption Application is allowed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the 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

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

JAYA CHANDRA RAJAN,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD 1 TIRUNELVEL, TIRUNELVEL

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

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

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COLLEGE OF GENERAL PRACTITIONERS HEAD QUARTERS TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

condoning the delay. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us and has raised the legal issue impugning the notice issued by the JAO dated 09.03.2023 passed u/s.148 of the Act as bad in law on the strength of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and other judicial precedents cited supra; and in this regard it is noted that the impugned notice

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION COLLEGE OF GENERAL PRACTITIONERS HEAD QUTS TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW22(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

condoning the delay. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us and has raised the legal issue impugning the notice issued by the JAO dated 09.03.2023 passed u/s.148 of the Act as bad in law on the strength of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and other judicial precedents cited supra; and in this regard it is noted that the impugned notice

RAJENDRAA SAKUNTHALA,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, NCC-2,, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee has emphasized the preliminary legal issue concerning the jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) in issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act by placing reliance on the CBDT Notification dated

DURAISAMY RAJESWARI,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-3(1), COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:673/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Duraiswamy Rajeswari, Ito, 17, Lakshmanan Nagar, Vs. Non-Corp Ward 3(1), 2Nd Street, Coimbatore. Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan:Afipr-0877-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. M. Mathangi, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T.

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The impugned Order is illegal, perverse and liable to be qualified 2. The Learned Appellate Authority erred in not considering the grounds and submission filed by the Appellant. 3. Without prejudice, the Impugned Penalty