DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

160 taxmann.com 237 (Delhi - Trib.) the Hon'ble\nDelhi Tribunal had held that Where fact of earning interest\nincome and miscellaneous income had been duly disclosed by\nassessee in its accounts and in original return with full details, it\ncould not be alleged that assessee was guilty of under-reporting\nand/or misreporting of income penalty under section 270A was\nnot

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

160 taxmann.com 237 (Delhi - Trib.) the Hon'ble\nDelhi Tribunal had held that Where fact of earning interest\nincome and miscellaneous income had been duly disclosed by\nassessee in its accounts and in original return with full details, it\ncould not be alleged that assessee was guilty of under-reporting\nand/or misreporting of income penalty under section 270A was\nnot

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

160 taxmann.com 237 (Delhi - Trib.) the Hon'ble\nDelhi Tribunal had held that Where fact of earning interest\nincome and miscellaneous income had been duly disclosed by\nassessee in its accounts and in original return with full details, it\ncould not be alleged that assessee was guilty of under-reporting\nand/or misreporting of income penalty under section 270A was\nnot

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

160 taxmann.com 237 (Delhi - Trib.) the Hon'ble\nDelhi Tribunal had held that Where fact of earning interest\nincome and miscellaneous income had been duly disclosed by\nassessee in its accounts and in original return with full details, it\ncould not be alleged that assessee was guilty of under-reporting\nand/or misreporting of income penalty under section 270A was\nnot

M/S ENRIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

271(1)(c) of the Act & Sec.270A of the Act, and wordings therein both provisions are similar and para materia to each other. Although, the term ‘tax evasion’ has been redefined by way of ‘under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income’ but it is synonymous to concealment of particular of income or furnishing

M/S ENRICE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

271(1)(c) of the Act & Sec.270A of the Act, and wordings therein both provisions are similar and para materia to each other. Although, the term ‘tax evasion’ has been redefined by way of ‘under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income’ but it is synonymous to concealment of particular of income or furnishing

MELAKANDY PUTHALATH FAROOK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1890/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Melekandy Puthalath Farook Acit बनाम/ Faraz No.9 Sbi Colony, Corporate Circle-2(1) Vs. Sastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapf-2644-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr

u/s 270A of the Act. The assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are two separate proceedings. The findings in the assessment proceedings cannot be considered as conclusive and final for the purpose of imposing penalty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali, reported in [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) observed that the findings in assessment

R. G. SUNDAR & CO,ERODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. R.G. Sundar & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Erode Feeds Producers, Vs. Of Income Tax, 82, Perundurai Road, Central Circle-2, Perundurai – 638 001. Coimbatore Pan: Aaffr 3771C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate Shri Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

160/- reducing the loss declared of Rs.1,44,43,1601/- u/s. 139(1) by admitting the income offered of Rs.22,35,000/- during the course of survey. The assessee revised its return of income only after the discrepancies find out during the course of survey and the reason provided by the AO for re-opening of assessment of u/s

R. G. SUNDAR & CO,ERODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. R.G. Sundar & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Erode Feeds Producers, Vs. Of Income Tax, 82, Perundurai Road, Central Circle-2, Perundurai – 638 001. Coimbatore Pan: Aaffr 3771C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate Shri Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

160/- reducing the loss declared of Rs.1,44,43,1601/- u/s. 139(1) by admitting the income offered of Rs.22,35,000/- during the course of survey. The assessee revised its return of income only after the discrepancies find out during the course of survey and the reason provided by the AO for re-opening of assessment of u/s

SHANMUGAM ARIVAZHAGAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 22(6), TAMBARAM

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

penalty orders u/s 271(1)(b), the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeals invoking section 249(3) of the Act on account of the delay of 15 days in filing appeals. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that no opportunity was given by the ld.CIT(A) to address the issue

SHANMUGAM ARIVAZHAGAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 22(6), TAMBARAM

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

penalty orders u/s 271(1)(b), the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeals invoking section 249(3) of the Act on account of the delay of 15 days in filing appeals. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that no opportunity was given by the ld.CIT(A) to address the issue

SHANMUGAM ARIVAZHAGAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 22(6), TAMBARAM

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

penalty orders u/s 271(1)(b), the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeals invoking section 249(3) of the Act on account of the delay of 15 days in filing appeals. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that no opportunity was given by the ld.CIT(A) to address the issue

SHANMUGAM ARIVAZHAGAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 22(6), TAMBARAM

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2860, 2861, 2862 & 2863/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) Shanmugam Arivazhagan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, 8Th Street, Non Corp Ward 22(6) Vembuliamman Koil Street, Tambaram. Selaiyur, Kanchipuram 600 073. Chennai. [Pan: Aacpa 1677R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Pushpa Hemachand, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Even Date 28.10.2024 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Senior Citizen & Retired Govt. Employee Who Is Earning Mere Pension Income & Small Salary Income. The Assessee Is Incapable Of Understanding & Using The Income Tax Portal To Submit

penalty orders u/s 271(1)(b), the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeals invoking section 249(3) of the Act on account of the delay of 15 days in filing appeals. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that no opportunity was given by the ld.CIT(A) to address the issue

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

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