R. ANBUVEL RAJAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL RANGE 1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

condone the delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee. adjudicate the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee. 3. Before adverting to the grounds raised in these appeals, it is first Before adverting to the grounds raised in these appeals, it is first Before adverting

M/S. MAHESHWARI BUILDERS,ADYAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-15(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

condoning the delay of 83 days. Ld. Sr. DR strongly opposed the contentions made by the ld Counsel and submitted that the penalty has been rightfully imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the written submissions made

NAMMALVAR LINGUSAMY,VALSARAVAKKAM vs. CIT [APPEALS]-14, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.532/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nammalvar Lingusamy, Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of 9, Janaki Nagar, Solai Krishnan Street, Income Tax, Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087. Non Corporate Range 20, Chennai. [Pan:Acbpn0214G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J.K. Reddy, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 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 31.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 24 Days In Filing The Appeal & Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause, The 2

delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of verification conducted by the DIT(I&CI), Chennai, it was found that the assessee sold an immovable property vide document No. 19206/2016 of SRO Virugambakkam dated 27.04.2016 and part of the sale consideration

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. DR. GANESAN'S HITECH DIAGNOSTICS CENTRE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3294/Mds/2016, 1761/Mds/2017 & 1762/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs M/S. Dr.Ganesan’S Hitech The Deputy Commissioner Of Diagnostics Centre P Ltd., Income Tax, No.1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai – 600 010. Chennai – 34. Pan: Aadcd7458H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

271D & 271E of the Act and further directed the Registry to issue defect memo. Complying with the directions of the Bench, the Revenue filed appeal in ITA Nos. 1761 & 1762 on 17.07.2017 with a delay of 224 days. The Revenue also filed a petition dated 17.07.2017 seeking condonation for the delay in filing the appeals which was only to cure

KARUPPUSAMY JAYAPRAKASH,COIMBATORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this\nappeal.\n3.0 The only issue raised in the present appeal by the assessee\nthrough its grounds is regarding the imposition of penalty u/s 271D and its\nconfirmation by the Ld.CIT(A).\nBrief facts of the case are that the\nassessee has been indulging in transaction with chit fund companies.\nAs per facts

CHIRANJJEEVI WIND ENERGY LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1857/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chiranjjeevi Wind Energy Limited, The Assistant Commissioner 26A, Kamaraj Road, Vs. Of Income Tax, Mahalingapuram, Corporate Circle -1, Pollachi, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 642 002. Pan: Aaacc 8761H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 22.04.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Assessee & Also Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That There Is A Reasonable Cause For The Assessee In Not Filing Appeal On Or Before The Due Date Prescribed Under The Law & Thus, In The Interests Of Justice, We Condone Delay In Filing Of Appeal & Admit Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Adjudication.

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 order issued u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. Commissioner

NOORDEEN AHMED AMINA ,SALEM vs. ITO , NFAC , DELHI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1118/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Noordeen Ahmed Amina Ito बनाम/ 18/27, Ranga Nagar, Suramangalam, Nfac Vs. Salem-636 005. New Delhi. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Bxepa-3157-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V.Lakshmi(Advocate)- Ld Ar "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Hema Bhupal (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271D For Rs.5 Lacs For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of Impugned Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 271D Of The Act Vide Order Dated 22-02-2022. In The Penalty Order, The Penalty Has Been Levied On The Finding That The Assessee Has Received Rs.5 Lacs In Cash On Sale Of Immovable Property

Section 269SS of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The registry has noted a delay of 34 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of an affidavit filed by the assessee. Though Ld. DR opposed condonation

SRINIVASAN JAUAPRAKASAM,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

271D of the Act i.e., for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271D for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act was issued on 04.01.2021. The ld.AR stated that as per the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act, penalty order should have been passed within six months from the end of the month in which penalty proceedings

B.RAAJARAAJAN,ERODE vs. JCIT, SALEM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1371/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04

Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that there was a delay of 36 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee incurred a huge loss during the financial year 2014-15 in share trading business. Therefore

RATHINASAMY PUSHPAVENI,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1378/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rathinasamy Pushpaveni, The Income Tax Officer, Rohini Garden, Vs. Ward-1(1), Azhagapuram Pudur, Salem. Salem – 636 016. [Pan: Bxxpp-0274-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

condone delay of 344 days, while it was filed ear after receipt of an order dated 10-O1-2023, passed by Principal Commissioner I Income- tax under section 264. 2. Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have recognized that a petition dated 23-05-2022 for remedy under section 264 had been filed on 16-03-2022 against the penalty) order passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. THANGAMANI PERUMALGOUNDER, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2155/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in the group case of M/s. SRS Mining. Based on the incriminating evidences seized and the information contained therein, the Assessing Officer (A.O) of the assessee initiated proceedings u/s. 153C