MEDAVAKKAM VATTARA NADARGALIKKIYA SANGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORP WARD 22(1), TAMBARAM, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

condone the delay is rejected, ITA Nos.2186 to 2190/Chny/2024 the same should be taken up along with the already filed memorandum of appeal, only then the courts can treat as lawfully presented. There is nothing wrong, if the courts return the memorandum of appeal as defective and such defect can be cured by the party concerned and present the appeal

MEDAVAKKAM VATTARA NADARGALIKKIYA SANGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORP WARD 22(1), TAMBARAM, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

condone the delay is rejected, ITA Nos.2186 to 2190/Chny/2024 the same should be taken up along with the already filed memorandum of appeal, only then the courts can treat as lawfully presented. There is nothing wrong, if the courts return the memorandum of appeal as defective and such defect can be cured by the party concerned and present the appeal

MEDAVAKKAM VATTARA NADARGALIKKIYA SANGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 22(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

condone the delay is rejected, ITA Nos.2186 to 2190/Chny/2024 the same should be taken up along with the already filed memorandum of appeal, only then the courts can treat as lawfully presented. There is nothing wrong, if the courts return the memorandum of appeal as defective and such defect can be cured by the party concerned and present the appeal

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

PONMUDI MUTHUSAMY GOUNDER TRUST,TIRUPPUR vs. DCIT (E), COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 250 of the Act, we are of the view that unless the statute authorizes the quasi judicial authority to dismiss the appeal for default expressly or by inevitable implication but the appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits and not dismiss it for default. For this, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble High Court

PONMUDI MUTHUSAMY GOUNDER TRUST,TIRUPPUR vs. DCIT(E), COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 250 of the Act, we are of the view that unless the statute authorizes the quasi judicial authority to dismiss the appeal for default expressly or by inevitable implication but the appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits and not dismiss it for default. For this, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble High Court

PONMUDI MUTHUSAMY GOUNDER TRUST,TIRUPPUR vs. DCIT(E), COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 250 of the Act, we are of the view that unless the statute authorizes the quasi judicial authority to dismiss the appeal for default expressly or by inevitable implication but the appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits and not dismiss it for default. For this, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble High Court

PONMUDI MUTHUSAMY GOUNDER TRUST,TIRUPPUR vs. DCIT (E), COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 250 of the Act, we are of the view that unless the statute authorizes the quasi judicial authority to dismiss the appeal for default expressly or by inevitable implication but the appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits and not dismiss it for default. For this, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble High Court

MOHAMED THAJUDEEN ABUTHAHIR,SIRKALI CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD 2, , NAGAPATTINAM CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 650/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohamed Thajudeen Abuthahir, The Income Tax Officer, 17, Railway Road, V. Ward-2, Sirkali – 609 110. Nagapattinam. Tamilnadu. [Pan: Afdpa-4979-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. :-4-: ITA. No: 650/Chny/2023 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant is engaged in the business of retail trading of readymade garments under the name of style of M/s. National Readymade at Sirkali. The appellant has filed his return

SHREE KRISHNA PLASTIC PROCESS PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 6 (1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2509/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15

273(1)(c)(iii) penalty can be levied only when there is tax liability. But in the case of assessee there was no tax liability as the assessee has returned Loss. 1.1. We are reproducing the Provisions of section 271(1)(c) which provides for imposition of penalty for concealment of income i.e. such a penalty can be imposed only

M/S SGS AGRO FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-6(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.878, 879 & 880/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. Sgs Agro Farms Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 59, 1St Floor, 2Nd Street, Secretariat Income Tax, Colony, Kellys, Chennai 600 010. Corporate Circle 6(1), [Pan:Aalcs7389E] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 06.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16. 2. These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 58 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. By Referring To The Above Affidavit, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That There Is Reasonable Cause For The Delay & 2

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 28.09.2011 admitting total loss of ₹.4,72,94,651/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 29.09.2012 admitting loss

M/S SGS AGRO FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-6(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.878, 879 & 880/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. Sgs Agro Farms Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 59, 1St Floor, 2Nd Street, Secretariat Income Tax, Colony, Kellys, Chennai 600 010. Corporate Circle 6(1), [Pan:Aalcs7389E] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 06.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16. 2. These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 58 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. By Referring To The Above Affidavit, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That There Is Reasonable Cause For The Delay & 2

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 28.09.2011 admitting total loss of ₹.4,72,94,651/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 29.09.2012 admitting loss

M/S. SGS AGRO FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-6(1), , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.878, 879 & 880/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. Sgs Agro Farms Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 59, 1St Floor, 2Nd Street, Secretariat Income Tax, Colony, Kellys, Chennai 600 010. Corporate Circle 6(1), [Pan:Aalcs7389E] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 06.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16. 2. These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 58 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. By Referring To The Above Affidavit, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That There Is Reasonable Cause For The Delay & 2

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 28.09.2011 admitting total loss of ₹.4,72,94,651/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 29.09.2012 admitting loss

ACIT, TRICHY vs. JENNYS HOTEL PVT. LTD., TRICHY

In the result the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2003-04 is allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

condone the delay of 673 days in filing the cross objections by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 4. Assessment year 2003-04:- A) Revenue’s Appeal:- The only issue which arises in the appeal for our consideration is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in excluding the CO Nos.72, 73, 112,113 & 114/Mds/2014 & 132/Mds/2015 interest

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the

273 Taxman148: 118\nTaxmann.com 46 (Del) has quashed the notice u/s 148 of the Act on a dead\nperson.\n6. We, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Courts referred\nsupra, set aside the notice dated 18.02.2020 issued under section 148 of the\nAct on 4 ITA No.1419 /Chny/2024 deceased assessee and declare the same as\nnullity. Hence

CHRYSALIS PLAY SCHOOL PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3586/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Chrysalis Play School Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, South Mada Street, Srinagar Income Tax, Colony, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aaicc2959D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sudarshan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.12.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Faridabad For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 273 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In 2

273 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, in 2 I.T.A. No.3586/Chny/25 the interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, we note that the assessee filed return of income under section

PAULPANDIAN UTHAMARAJ WINSTON,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:418 To 421/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh, Pcit (Central) No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Vs. Chennai-1 Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Adfpp-5207-J] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:422 To 425/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Paulpandianuthamaraj Pcit (Central) Winston, Vs. Chennai-1 No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpu-5409-L] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

273 (SC) which enforces the point raised in Ground No.2.” 2. There was a delay of 257 days in filing the appeal by the above assessees. The Ld.DR stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay that due to fault of previous Auditor of the assessee, order u/s.263 of the Act was not contested before the ITAT. Moreover, he wrongly

PERINBA RAJA RAMESH,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:418 To 421/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh, Pcit (Central) No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Vs. Chennai-1 Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Adfpp-5207-J] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:422 To 425/Chny/2025 धनधाारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Shri Paulpandianuthamaraj Pcit (Central) Winston, Vs. Chennai-1 No.37, Rameswaram Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aabpu-5409-L] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

273 (SC) which enforces the point raised in Ground No.2.” 2. There was a delay of 257 days in filing the appeal by the above assessees. The Ld.DR stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay that due to fault of previous Auditor of the assessee, order u/s.263 of the Act was not contested before the ITAT. Moreover, he wrongly