SIDDHARTH N MAHER,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

271 AAB(1) of the Act and consequently and as a corollary the same is covered by section 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. On behalf of assessee, we have heard ld. Senior Counsel, Shri G. Baskar and on behalf of the Revenue, ld. Senior DR, Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. GHISULAI KOTHARI, CHENNAI

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271 AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is reproduced below: (c) "Undisclosed income "means — (i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or the other documents or transactions found in the course

ACIT CENTRLA CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. SHANTILAL KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

113 4 Kewalchand Kothari a) As per wealth tax return 9667.05 93.350 102 b) As per physical inventorization 3541.900 3.26 59 Total weight jewellery of all family members a) As per wealth tax return 33136.15 354.750 443 b) As per physical inventorization 33322.400 496.790 466 Difference/ Discrepancy 186 grams 142 carats 23 kilos From the above it can be seen

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. KEWALCHAND KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

113 4 Kewalchand Kothari a) As per wealth tax return 9667.05 93.350 102 b) As per physical inventorization 3541.900 3.26 59 Total weight jewellery of all family members a) As per wealth tax return 33136.15 354.750 443 b) As per physical inventorization 33322.400 496.790 466 Difference/ Discrepancy 186 grams 142 carats 23 kilos From the above it can be seen

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. SARDARMAL KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

113 4 Kewalchand Kothari a) As per wealth tax return 9667.05 93.350 102 b) As per physical inventorization 3541.900 3.26 59 Total weight jewellery of all family members a) As per wealth tax return 33136.15 354.750 443 b) As per physical inventorization 33322.400 496.790 466 Difference/ Discrepancy 186 grams 142 carats 23 kilos From the above it can be seen

ANOTRA REALATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)- 1, CHENNAI

271(1)(c) of the Act. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee filed reply but the PCIT was not convinced and passed the revision order directing the AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by observing in paras 8 to 10 as under:- "8. In this case penalty has been initiated under

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same. 4. Quite clearly, Ld. AO has made addition of credit receipt in bank account of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to adduce supporting documents. The amount thus received by the assessee has been treated as unexplained investment u/s

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

271 of the Act for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment I.T.A. No.322/Chny/2016 of income. Thereafter the AO passed final assessment order again vide dated 12.01.2016. Under such circumstances, the assessee raised additional ground, which is reproduced in the above para 3 and for the same of clarity again it is being reproduced

KELLER GROUND ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

271 of the Act for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. Thereafter the AO passed final assessment order again vide dated 12.01.2016. Under such circumstances, the assessee raised additional ground, which is reproduced in the above para 3 and for the same of clarity again it is being reproduced

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

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© is initiated separately. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same. 4. Quite clearly, Ld. AO has made addition of credit receipt in bank account of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to adduce supporting documents. The amount thus received by the assessee has been treated as unexplained investment u/s

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(4), CHENNAI vs. SHRI O. PANNEERSELVAM, CHENNAI

In the result, the cross-objections stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri O. Panneerselvam बनाम Central Circle-2(4), No.70, South Agraharam, / Vs. Chennai. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.5/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.581/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. Cross Objection No.6/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.582/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri O. Panneerselvam Dcit बनाम No.70, South Agraharam, Central Circle-2(4), / Vs. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nanda Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-04-2024

271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue for concealment of particulars of his income. 4.16 The assessment for AY 2017-18 has been framed on similar lines. The Ld. AO made addition for alleged payments made by the firm to the assessee. The Ld. AO made another addition of undisclosed income. The same was on the basis

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(4), CHENNAI vs. SHRI O. PANNEERSELVAM, CHENNAI

In the result, the cross-objections stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri O. Panneerselvam बनाम Central Circle-2(4), No.70, South Agraharam, / Vs. Chennai. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.5/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.581/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. Cross Objection No.6/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.582/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri O. Panneerselvam Dcit बनाम No.70, South Agraharam, Central Circle-2(4), / Vs. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nanda Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-04-2024

271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue for concealment of particulars of his income. 4.16 The assessment for AY 2017-18 has been framed on similar lines. The Ld. AO made addition for alleged payments made by the firm to the assessee. The Ld. AO made another addition of undisclosed income. The same was on the basis

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHRI VAITHILINGAM, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee, for all the three years, stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.604/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.605/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.606/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Vaithilingam बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.3/335, South Street, Chennai. Telungankudikadu, Orathanad, / Vs. Thanjavur-614 625. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapv-5323-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.51/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.604/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.52/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.605/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.53/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.606/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue for concealment of particulars of his income. 4.16 The assessment for AYs 2016-17 as well as for AY 2017-18 has been framed on similar lines. The Ld. AO made addition for alleged payments made by the firm to the assessee in both the years. In addition

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHRI VAITHILINGAM, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee, for all the three years, stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.604/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.605/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.606/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Vaithilingam बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.3/335, South Street, Chennai. Telungankudikadu, Orathanad, / Vs. Thanjavur-614 625. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapv-5323-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.51/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.604/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.52/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.605/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.53/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.606/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue for concealment of particulars of his income. 4.16 The assessment for AYs 2016-17 as well as for AY 2017-18 has been framed on similar lines. The Ld. AO made addition for alleged payments made by the firm to the assessee in both the years. In addition

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHRI VAITHILINGAM, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee, for all the three years, stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.604/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.605/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.606/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Vaithilingam बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.3/335, South Street, Chennai. Telungankudikadu, Orathanad, / Vs. Thanjavur-614 625. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapv-5323-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.51/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.604/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.52/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.605/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.53/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.606/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue for concealment of particulars of his income. 4.16 The assessment for AYs 2016-17 as well as for AY 2017-18 has been framed on similar lines. The Ld. AO made addition for alleged payments made by the firm to the assessee in both the years. In addition