SUMERMAL KANTILAL JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1011/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Gautham Chand Jain, Assistant Commissioner Of No. 13, 3Rd Street, V. Income Tax, Balgota Villa, Central Circle 1(1), Sambier Street, Gandhi Salai, Chennai -600 034. Seven Wells, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aahpg-0295-J] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1012/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sumermal Kantilal Jain, Assistant Commissioner Of 104/A6, Govindappa Naicken V. Income Tax, Street, George Town, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaopj-1866-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Dr. Ca. Abhishek Murali, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2023

disallowing the same. (iii) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has not provided any opportunity and has merely made the addition without issuing a show-cause notice or a 2° hearing, (iv) The Learned CIT(A) has also failed to adjudicate grounds raised in the Appeal. Cash already Recorded in Books - Addition_uls 69A Bad In Law: (v) Without Prejudice

GAUTHAM CHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1011/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Gautham Chand Jain, Assistant Commissioner Of No. 13, 3Rd Street, V. Income Tax, Balgota Villa, Central Circle 1(1), Sambier Street, Gandhi Salai, Chennai -600 034. Seven Wells, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aahpg-0295-J] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1012/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sumermal Kantilal Jain, Assistant Commissioner Of 104/A6, Govindappa Naicken V. Income Tax, Street, George Town, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaopj-1866-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Dr. Ca. Abhishek Murali, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2023

disallowing the same. (iii) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has not provided any opportunity and has merely made the addition without issuing a show-cause notice or a 2° hearing, (iv) The Learned CIT(A) has also failed to adjudicate grounds raised in the Appeal. Cash already Recorded in Books - Addition_uls 69A Bad In Law: (v) Without Prejudice

HUSSAIN MOHIDEEN IBRAHIM SHA,CHENNAI vs. JACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowed u/s.69C of the Act. In view of these arguments, he stated that the CIT(A) has rightly upheld the addition made by the AO. 4. We noted that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act have been brought into the statute book w.e.f. 01.04.2017 by the Finance Act, 2016 and a beneficial circular has been issued by CBDT

M/S OVERSEAS LEATHERS,RANIPET vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 962/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Overseas Leathers, Deputy Commissioner Of No. 131, Sidco Industrial V. Income-Tax, Estates, Central Circle -3(3), Sipcot, Ranipet, Ranipet New No. 46, Old No. 108, District – 632 403 Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aaafo-0375-L] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023

69B of the Act. In this case, facts are entirely different. The excess stock found during the course of survey was mixed with regular stock in trade of the assessee in its business. The survey team was also not identified excess stock separately, but was valued because the assessee could not reconcile the difference in stock in trade when compared

SURESH KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 167/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Suresh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner Of 114/10 (Ligh), Gandhi Road, V. Income Tax, West Tambaram, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai – 600 045. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagps-0396-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

69B of the Act. In this case, facts are entirely different. The excess stock found during the course of survey was mixed with regular stock in trade of the assessee in its business. The survey team was also not identified excess stock separately, but was valued because the assessee could not reconcile the difference in stock in trade when compared

TRISHUL SHELTERS PVT LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed “

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

disallowance. o It is therefore submitted that the action of the learned Assessing Officer in applying the provisions of section 69C to inventory is not in accordance with law. Submission with reference to adjusting the opening stock of next year: o It is submitted that whenever, the value of the closing stock is increased in the assessment, by making addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19

69B r.w.s. 115BBE. 4.1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in observing that the stock difference valued at Rs.1,12,76,930/- is merely a valuation difference in respect of the stock that is already accounted in the books of account without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not furnished any working with evidence for his valuation of stock

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [Pan:Aagpr-3421-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.& Shri.K.S.Rajendra Kumar, C.A. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Dated 07.10.2024, 04.10.2024 &04.10.2024And Pertain To Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21&2018-19 Respectively. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

69B r.w.s.115BBE. 4.1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in observing that the stock difference valued at Rs.1,12,76,930/- is merely a valuation difference in respect of the stock that is already accounted in the books of account without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not furnished any working with evidence for his valuation of stock

C.R.SELVARAJU,SALEM vs. ITO, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1012/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri C.R. Selvaraju The Income-Tax Officer, Nsr Mall, D.No.195, Salem V. Ward-(1), Road, Namakkal Post, Namakkal. Namakkal Dt. 637 001. Pan Bsjps 7393 N (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

69B is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him’’. 11. Under the provision of Section 142A(1), the Assessing Officer could refer the matter to DVO for ascertaining the cost of construction when the proceeding is pending before him. However, before referring

MR.PONNUSWAMY KARUNANITHY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

section 69B. Mere showing it under Other Sources head will not distinguish his case. It is to be noted that this income shown is over and above the net profit from the accounted business. No proof given to show how it has arisen from his business. Thus, SVS Oil Mills case squarely applies in the assessee's case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxх, Central Circle -1, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Shri Kumarasamy Ramakrishnan, Ramakrishna Poultry Farm, No.79, Main Road, Thalavapalayam, Karur, Tamil Nadu – 639 113. [Pan:Aagpr-3421-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.M.V.Prasad, C.A.& Shri.K.S.Rajendra Kumar, C.A. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Dated 07.10.2024, 04.10.2024 &04.10.2024And Pertain To Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21&2018-19 Respectively. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order. :-2-:

69B r.w.s.115BBE. 4.1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in observing that the stock difference valued at Rs.1,12,76,930/- is merely a valuation difference in respect of the stock that is already accounted in the books of account without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not furnished any working with evidence for his valuation of stock

C.R.SELVARAJ,SALEM vs. ITO, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.100/Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-2012)

69B is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him’’. 11. Under the provision of Section 142A(1), the Assessing Officer could refer the matter to DVO for ascertaining the cost of construction when the proceeding is pending before him. However, before referring

SARANGABANI KIRUBAGARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1236/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.30 Lacs & Assessment Of Short- Term Capital Gain (Stcg) For Rs.12.19 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments & Submitted That Impugned Addition Of Rs.30 Lacs U/S 69 Represent Advance Received Through

disallowed. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, filed written submissions and submitted that the quoting of wrong section would not vitiate the addition made by Ld. AO as held in various judicial decisions. The copies of the same has been placed on record. The assessment of STCG was also justified. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal

SARANGABANI KIRUBAKARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1237/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 31- 03-2022. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.8.04 Lacs & Rs.5 Lacs. The Assessee Is Also Aggrieved By Computation Of Long-Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of Rs.157.45 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments On Merits As Well As On Legal Grounds & Also Raised Additional Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Cit-Dr

disallow the same is the allegation that the assessee is not able to show the carrying out of agricultural activities on the said land. We are of the considered opinion that as long as the land is classified as agricultural land and the same is sold as such then in such a case, the purpose for which the purchaser would

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TARACHANTHINI FINANCIAL SERVICES (P) LTD., CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.473/Chny/2010 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2000-01) M/S. Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम #25, Taurus No.1, First Main Road, Corporate Circle-3(1) United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 024. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9272-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.549/Chny/2010 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Dcit M/S. Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1) #25, Taurus No.1, First Main Road, Chennai. United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Vs. Chennai-600 024. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9272-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

disallowed for want of evidences. 2.7 Addition of Investments The assessee made investments of Rs.2490 Lacs. The assessee could not furnish requisite details for investment of Rs.2175 Lacs. Therefore, these investments were held to be not explained satisfactorily and not fully disclosed as per section 69B

TARACHANTHINI SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.473/Chny/2010 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2000-01) M/S. Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम #25, Taurus No.1, First Main Road, Corporate Circle-3(1) United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 024. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9272-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.549/Chny/2010 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Dcit M/S. Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1) #25, Taurus No.1, First Main Road, Chennai. United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Vs. Chennai-600 024. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9272-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

disallowed for want of evidences. 2.7 Addition of Investments The assessee made investments of Rs.2490 Lacs. The assessee could not furnish requisite details for investment of Rs.2175 Lacs. Therefore, these investments were held to be not explained satisfactorily and not fully disclosed as per section 69B

C vs. GRANITES,MADURAIVS.ITO WARD 2(1), MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 69B cannot be made unless the assessing officer prove that payment was made outside the books of accounts for such alleged excess purchases. 4) The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without examining the facts surrounding each ground of appeal even though the appeal was to be decided on ex-parte basis. 5) Without prejudice

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERALS SANDS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

disallowance of items of expenses ought to be separately adjudicated and decided upon as to whether it is to be separately added to the estimated business income. According to us however, once the books of account are rejected by invoking the provisions of section 145 of the Act and the income is estimated to the best of judgment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERALS SANDS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

disallowance of items of expenses ought to be separately adjudicated and decided upon as to whether it is to be separately added to the estimated business income. According to us however, once the books of account are rejected by invoking the provisions of section 145 of the Act and the income is estimated to the best of judgment