VEEDIYARASAMPALAYAM POWERLOOM WEAVERS CO-OP PRODUCTION AND SALES SOCIETY LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ITA No.3018 to 3020/CHNY/2024 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 86 days in filing each of the appeals. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay accompanied by affidavit of the administrator of the assessee society

MR. ABDUL MUNAF IRFANUDEEN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condoned the 869-day delay in filing appeals due to the assessee's lack of education and understanding of tax matters.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "249(4

CHARSUR ARTS FOUNDATION,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.:1753/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Charsur Arts Foundation, The Commissioner Of No. 72, M.C.P. Ramasamy Road, Vs. Income Tax (Exemption), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aabtc-1154-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hithesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Dated 16.05.2025 Passed Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Solitary Issue Argued On Merits Is With Regard To Maintainability Of Appeal Filed Against The Order Passed Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Act.

condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 6. We note that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable before the Tribunal for the reason that an assessee is not vested with any right to assail an order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act by preferring an appeal before the Income

ABUSHA INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the law and the facts and circumstance of the case. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) had grossly erred in law and on facts by passing the impugned order without giving a sufficient

MR. ABDUL MUNAF IRFANUDEEN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16 to 2021-22. ITA Nos.2513 to 2519/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. Common issues are raised in these appeals and they pertains to the same assessee, hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by a consolidated order. 3. The assessee has primarily

MR. ABDUL MUNAF IRFANUDEEN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16 to 2021-22. ITA Nos.2513 to 2519/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. Common issues are raised in these appeals and they pertains to the same assessee, hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by a consolidated order. 3. The assessee has primarily

MR. ABDUL MUNAF IRFANUDEEN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16 to 2021-22. ITA Nos.2513 to 2519/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. Common issues are raised in these appeals and they pertains to the same assessee, hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by a consolidated order. 3. The assessee has primarily

MR. ABDUL MUNAF IRFANUDEEN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16 to 2021-22. ITA Nos.2513 to 2519/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. Common issues are raised in these appeals and they pertains to the same assessee, hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by a consolidated order. 3. The assessee has primarily

MR. ABDUL MUNAF IRFANUDEEN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-194), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16 to 2021-22. ITA Nos.2513 to 2519/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. Common issues are raised in these appeals and they pertains to the same assessee, hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by a consolidated order. 3. The assessee has primarily

MR. ABDUL MUNAF IRFANUDEEN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16 to 2021-22. ITA Nos.2513 to 2519/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. Common issues are raised in these appeals and they pertains to the same assessee, hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by a consolidated order. 3. The assessee has primarily

ERODE DISTRICT TRACTOR OWNERS ASSOCIATION,ERODE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518 & 2519/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, The Deputy Commissioner No.42, Maraikayar Street-Ii Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax, Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Central Circle – 1(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. Pan: Aawpi 0038G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16 to 2021-22. ITA Nos.2513 to 2519/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. Common issues are raised in these appeals and they pertains to the same assessee, hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by a consolidated order. 3. The assessee has primarily

SRI KUMAWAT SAMAJ TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.627/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sri Kumawat Samaj Trust, Vs. The Commissioner Of No. 14, 1St Floor, Kumarappa Street, Income Tax (Exemptions), Sevenwells, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aavts7941K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Naresh Singh Rathore, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

condonation of delay under section 1119(2)(b) of the Act. 6. We note that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable before the Tribunal for the reason that an assessee is not vested with any right to assail an order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act by preferring an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal

TIRUPUR ARUNACHALA GOUNDER RADHAMBIKAI KUPPUSAMY,TIRUPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.363/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) T A G Radhambikai Kuppusamy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.5, Mp Nagar Extension, Che –C (68) (1) Suriya Prabha Garden, Chennai. Tirupur 641 607

4. As against the assessment order dated 14.03.2023, the assessee has filed an appeal u/s 250 of the Act before the CIT(A) with a delay of 239 days. 5. As per Section 249(2) of the Act appeal shall be presented within 30 days to the CIT(A) which can be condoned

NEETHIVANAN JEYASUDHA,CHENNAI vs. ADDL JCIT (A), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.449/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Neethivanan Jeyasudha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No.P3, Old No.P13, Non Corporate Ward 19(4) 19Th Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan: Aplpj5195D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Varadarajan, Cma ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

4. As against the intimation u/s 143(1) dated 28.12.2022, the assessee has filed an appeal u/s 250 of CIT(A) with a delay of 7 months. 5. As per Section 249(2) of the Act appeal shall be presented within 30 days to the CIT(A) which can be condoned

MUDHIYOR BALARKUDUMBA GRAMA PANNAI,VELLORE vs. EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.592/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

250 of CIT(A) with a delay of 215 days. 4. As per Section 249(2) of the Act appeal shall be presented within 30 days to the CIT(A) which can be condoned

ITO, NCW - I (4),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NITHYASUDHA COMBINES,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

4 I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/20 & C.O. Nos.06 & 07/Chny/21 considering the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “(v) In the instant case, the appellant explained that the delay was on account of two reasons i.e., 1) wrong advise of the part time accountant that the appeal before the Commissioner of Income

ITO, NCW - I (4),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NITHYASUDHA COMBINES,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

4 I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/20 & C.O. Nos.06 & 07/Chny/21 considering the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “(v) In the instant case, the appellant explained that the delay was on account of two reasons i.e., 1) wrong advise of the part time accountant that the appeal before the Commissioner of Income

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI vs. RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR JAINOLOGY,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Before going into the merits of the case, the Revenue has pleaded for condonation of delay of 249 days in filing the appeal and explained the reasons and filed the affidavit. 3. The ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee seriously objected to the condonation