JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. AACIT, NCC-11(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

condoning the delay in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A). 21. Now coming to the other issues in the case, the assessee has raised the following: 1. That no fresh tangible material was available before the AO for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 2. That the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144", "148", "148A", "149", "151", "69A", "69" ], "issues": "Whether the notice issued under

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI , CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

sections": [ "147", "144", "148", "148A", "149", "151", "132", "143(1)", "69A", "115BBE", "69" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) warrants condonation

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

sections": [ "147", "144", "148", "148A", "149", "151", "115BBE", "69A", "69" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee succeeds on the legal ground

Delay condoned.\n2. Exemption Application is allowed.\n3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners – Revenue\nand having gone through the materials on record, we find no good reason to\ninterfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.\n3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending\napplications, if any, shall also stand disposed

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

MOHAMED HUSSAIN MAHAMED HARISAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-5(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Harissi, 10, Nethaji Nagar, Iind Street Non Corporate Ward 5(5), Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Apepm2204H] (Petitioner By) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Petitioner By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Both Dated 01.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11 & 2011-12. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 277 Days Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. By Filing Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Explained As Under:

section 69A of the Act at ₹.44,48,325/- for the assessment year 2011-12. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals by rejecting the 4 I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/19 condonation petition for the delay

MOHAMED HUSSAIN MAHAMED HARISAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-5(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Mohamed Hussain Mohamed Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Harissi, 10, Nethaji Nagar, Iind Street Non Corporate Ward 5(5), Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 081. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Apepm2204H] (Petitioner By) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Petitioner By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Both Dated 01.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010- 11 & 2011-12. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 277 Days Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Tribunal. By Filing Condonation Petition In Support Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Explained As Under:

section 69A of the Act at ₹.44,48,325/- for the assessment year 2011-12. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals by rejecting the 4 I.T.A. Nos.654 & 655/Chny/19 condonation petition for the delay

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

Section 69A of the Act were absent in the present case and in circumstances. 5. The NFAC failed to appreciate that the source for the cash deposits was explained at every stage of the proceedings and ought to have appreciated that the rejection of explanation for sustaining the addition at para 11 of the impugned order was wrong, incorrect, erroneous

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

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. The 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

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

KAVVERY PERUMAL SATHEESWARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO,WARD 1, TIRUCHENGODE, TIRUCHENGODE

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.:3102/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Kavvery Perumal Satheeswaran, The Income Tax Officer, 8/66, Thangavel Illam, Cauvery R.S., Vs. Ward 1, Pallipalayam, Erode 638 007. Tiruchengode. [Pan: Asxps2629A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri N.C. Ravi Krishnan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-: 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 23.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 4 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find That The Reasons Explained By The Assessee Are Bonafide & Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. The only effective ground raised in the appeal is whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of ₹.48,75,500/- made under section 69A

DD 587 A, VELLODU PACCS,DINDIGUL vs. ITO, WARD-1,, DINDIGUL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3282/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

69A of the Act towards unexplained money stating that the assessee has not furnished sufficient details explaining the source. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 181 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine

RAMASAMY RAJENDRAN,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAMAKKAL

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.817 & 818/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ramasamy Rajendran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4/43C, Kollipatti, Reddipatti, Ward 1, Namakkal 637 002. Namakkal. [Pan:Aswpr5141F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Tamil Amudhan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee raised 6 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A

RAMASAMY RAJENDRAN,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAMAKKAL

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.817 & 818/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ramasamy Rajendran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4/43C, Kollipatti, Reddipatti, Ward 1, Namakkal 637 002. Namakkal. [Pan:Aswpr5141F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Tamil Amudhan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee raised 6 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A

UMAMAHESWARI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2033/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

condoning the delay of 1064 days in filing the appeal, despite cogent, bona fide, and reasonable grounds being provided explaining the delay, including reliance on erroneous advice of the Chartered Accountant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the notarized affidavit filed by the appellant along with the appeal explaining the circumstances which led to the delay in filing

SEKAR JAYALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-22(2), WEST TAMBARAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.20/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Doshi – Nakshatra-1, Old Sbi Colony, Non Corporate Ward 22(2), Near Rto, 2E Swathi Block, West Tambaram. Tambaram, Tamil Nadu 600 045. [Pan:Awipj1285G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.N. Rangamani, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Dated 12.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 248 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted For Adjudication.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 30.03.2013 returning total 2 I.T.A. No. 20/Chny/21 income of ₹.2,35,280/-. During the course of remand proceedings relating to assessment year 2012-13, the assessee submitted

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)", "139", "153C", "142(1)", "208", "209", "210", "144", "132A", "263", "69A