DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

condone the delay of 5 days in filing\nthese appeals and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.\n3.\nCommon issues are raised in these appeals, hence they\nwere heard together and are being disposed off by this\nconsolidated order. We shall first adjudicate the appeal preferred\nby the Revenue in ITA No.1650/Chny/2025 pertaining to the\nA.Y.2015-16, which arises

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

condone the delay of 5 days in filing\nthese appeals and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.\n3.\nCommon issues are raised in these appeals, hence they\nwere heard together and are being disposed off by this\nconsolidated order. We shall first adjudicate the appeal preferred\nby the Revenue in ITA No.1650/Chny/2025 pertaining to the\nA.Y.2015-16, which arises

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

condone the delay of 5 days in filing\nthese appeals and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.\n3.\nCommon issues are raised in these appeals, hence they\nwere heard together and are being disposed off by this\nconsolidated order. We shall first adjudicate the appeal preferred\nby the Revenue in ITA No.1650/Chny/2025 pertaining to the\nA.Y.2015-16, which arises

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

condone the delay of 5 days in filing\nthese appeals and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.\n3.\nCommon issues are raised in these appeals, hence they\nwere heard together and are being disposed off by this\nconsolidated order. We shall first adjudicate the appeal preferred\nby the Revenue in ITA No.1650/Chny/2025 pertaining to the\nA.Y.2015-16, which arises

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

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

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

CHENNIAPPAN RAMADURAI,ERODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1337/Chny/2023 & Ita Nos.1340/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 & Ay-2019-20 Shri Chenniappan Ramadurai, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.56, Nms Compound, Erode, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. Tamil Nadu-638001. [Pan: Aelpr2706M] & Ita Nos.1343/Chny/2023 For Ay 2019-20 Smt. Ramadurai Amutha, No.56, Nms Compound, Erode, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-638001. Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. [Pan: Afvpa4816L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

delay in filing the appeal is therefore condoned and the appeal is being adjudicated as under. 3.0 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 22.09.2023, the assesse has raised grounds of appeal 1 to 5 4.0 Ground of appeal no.1 & 2 is general in nature and hence bereft of any adjudication. 5.0 Ground of appeal no.3 to 5 are regarding imposition

THE INSTITUTE OF THE FRANCISCAN MISSIONARIES OF MARY SOCIETY NO.14 (AOP),NILGIRIS vs. ITO, EXEMTIONS,, COIMBATORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3660/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

condoning the delay. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. Before us the Ld. AR raised the primary legal contention that the penalty notice u/s.270A does not specify the specific limb under which the penalty proceeding is initiated i.e. under reporting

VIKRAM REDDY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-18(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 310 & 311/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vikram Reddy, Income Tax Officer, 202, Lotus Serviced Apartments Vs. Non Corporate Ward - 18(5), 15, Venkataraman Street, Chennai. Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aqzpv5520B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits in accordance with law by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. I.T.A. No. 311/Chny/2025 8. Against the quantum addition, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 270A

VIKRAM REDDY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-18(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 310 & 311/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vikram Reddy, Income Tax Officer, 202, Lotus Serviced Apartments Vs. Non Corporate Ward - 18(5), 15, Venkataraman Street, Chennai. Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aqzpv5520B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits in accordance with law by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. I.T.A. No. 311/Chny/2025 8. Against the quantum addition, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 270A

NO.K.779.GURUVAREDDIYUR PRIMARY AGRI CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,ERODE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1) ERODE, ERODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2778 & 2779/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 K 779 Guruvareddiyur Primary Agri Co- Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Op. Credit Society, Chennampatti Main Ward 2(1), Road, Guruvareddiyur Post, Bhavani Erode. Taluk, Erode 638 504. [Pan:Aaaag1657Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 11.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Quantum Addition As Well As Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

section 270A of the Act since the assessee has not e-filed appeal against the quantum addition. He submits that since the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against quantum addition for AY 2020-21 and the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merits, confirmation of levy of penalty by the first appellate authority

NO.K.779.GURUVAREDDIYUR PRIMARY AGRI CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,ERODE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1) ERODE, ERODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2778 & 2779/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 K 779 Guruvareddiyur Primary Agri Co- Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Op. Credit Society, Chennampatti Main Ward 2(1), Road, Guruvareddiyur Post, Bhavani Erode. Taluk, Erode 638 504. [Pan:Aaaag1657Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 11.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Quantum Addition As Well As Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

section 270A of the Act since the assessee has not e-filed appeal against the quantum addition. He submits that since the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against quantum addition for AY 2020-21 and the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merits, confirmation of levy of penalty by the first appellate authority

UMADEVI SIVAJI,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, DHARMAPURI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3669/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 69A of the act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee did not respond nor submitted any details before the CIT(A). Therefore the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of 1285 days

PALLAVA TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED ,PALLIPALAYAM vs. ITO , NFAC , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.862/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-2018 M/S. Pallava Textiles Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27-C, Sankari Bye Pass Road, National Faceless Assessment Pallipalayam – 638 006, Centre [Nafac], Delhi. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aabcp9105F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 05.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-2018 In Confirming Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

delay in filing the appeal stands condoned and admitted the same for adjudication. 4. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 27.10.2017 declaring total income at ₹.19,25,62,355/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently

JAMAL MOHIDEEN HAROON IMRAN KHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1962, 1963 & 1964/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15/7, Vijayaragava Road First Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(2) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaopi4540B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate & : Shri Gautam Venkatanarayanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Different Orders Dated 06.03.2025, 27.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively.

8. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, 4 I.T.A. No.1962 to 1964/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal

JAMAL MOHIDEEN HAROON IMRAN KHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1962, 1963 & 1964/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15/7, Vijayaragava Road First Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(2) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaopi4540B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate & : Shri Gautam Venkatanarayanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Different Orders Dated 06.03.2025, 27.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively.

8. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, 4 I.T.A. No.1962 to 1964/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal

JAMAL MOHIDEEN HAROON IMRAN KHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1962, 1963 & 1964/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15/7, Vijayaragava Road First Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(2) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaopi4540B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate & : Shri Gautam Venkatanarayanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Different Orders Dated 06.03.2025, 27.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively.

8. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 72 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, 4 I.T.A. No.1962 to 1964/Chny/25 we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal