DR.S.F.V.SELVARAJ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.868 & 869/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Dr. (Late) S.F.V. Selvaraj, The Deputy Commissioner Of Rep. By L/H Dr. Kamala Selvaraj, Vs. Income Tax, Dr. Deepu Rajkamal Selvaraj, Dr. Priya Central Circle 2(5), Selvaraj, No. 22, 5Th Street, Dr. Chennai. Thirumurthy Nagar, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps5404L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 08.02.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Quantum Addition Of Unexplained Cash Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271Aaa Of The Act. Against Quantum Addition, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

69A of the Act, which was duly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the authorities below on this issue. 7. With regard to the appeal filed against confirmation of levy of penalty under section 271AAA of the Act, the assessee has challenged confirmation of penalty levied under section

DR.S.F.V.SELVARAJ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.868 & 869/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Dr. (Late) S.F.V. Selvaraj, The Deputy Commissioner Of Rep. By L/H Dr. Kamala Selvaraj, Vs. Income Tax, Dr. Deepu Rajkamal Selvaraj, Dr. Priya Central Circle 2(5), Selvaraj, No. 22, 5Th Street, Dr. Chennai. Thirumurthy Nagar, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps5404L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 08.02.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Quantum Addition Of Unexplained Cash Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271Aaa Of The Act. Against Quantum Addition, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

69A of the Act, which was duly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the authorities below on this issue. 7. With regard to the appeal filed against confirmation of levy of penalty under section 271AAA of the Act, the assessee has challenged confirmation of penalty levied under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been paid on or before the end of the relevant previous year

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

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee company and it is liable to be added to their total income. Addition: Rs.5,18,49,128/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are initiated separately. Subsequently, vide para 6 also he initiated penalty proceedings as under: - "6. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are initiated separately." The assessment has become

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

69A or section 69B, is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may refer the matter to the Valuation Officer for estimating the said value and reporting the matter to him. Sub-section (2) stipulates that the Valuation Officer to whom the reference is made under sub-section (1) shall, have all the powers similar to section

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

69A or section 69B, is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may refer the matter to the Valuation Officer for estimating the said value and reporting the matter to him. Sub-section (2) stipulates that the Valuation Officer to whom the reference is made under sub-section (1) shall, have all the powers similar to section

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

69A or section 69B, is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may refer the matter to the Valuation Officer for estimating the said value and reporting the matter to him. Sub-section (2) stipulates that the Valuation Officer to whom the reference is made under sub-section (1) shall, have all the powers similar to section

M/S. J FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

69A or section 69B, is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may refer the matter to the Valuation Officer for estimating the said value and reporting the matter to him. Sub-section (2) stipulates that the Valuation Officer to whom the reference is made under sub-section (1) shall, have all the powers similar to section

S.GOPI,DHARMAPURI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 468/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri. S. Gopi, Acit, Prop: S.S. Jewellery, V. Central Circle, 38/118, Duraisamy Naidu Street, Salem. Dharmapuri – 636 701. [Pan:Acdpg-9303-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

69A of the Act as unexplained money. 5. Subsequently, penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAB of the Act was initiated and accordingly notice u/s. 271AAB r.w.s. :-4-: ITA. No:468/Chny/2019 274 of the Act was issued. In response, the assessee submitted that he had filed return in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act and admitted income towards seized cash

ANWAR SULTHAN AKBAR ALI,TIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, NCW-19(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.460 & 461/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anwar Sulthan Akbar Ali, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5131, Mosque Road, Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Ayapakkam, Tiruvallur 600 077. Chennai. [Pan:Aonpa4265J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 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 20.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up Appeal In Ita No. 460/Chny/2025 For Adjudication Of Confirmation Of Quantum Addition.

69A and also imposed penalty u/s 271(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the orders, an appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, who has dismissed the same. Further appeals have been preferred before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, against the above ld. CIT (A) orders

ANWAR SULTHAN AKBAR ALI,TIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, NCW-19(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.460 & 461/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anwar Sulthan Akbar Ali, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5131, Mosque Road, Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Ayapakkam, Tiruvallur 600 077. Chennai. [Pan:Aonpa4265J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 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 20.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up Appeal In Ita No. 460/Chny/2025 For Adjudication Of Confirmation Of Quantum Addition.

69A and also imposed penalty u/s 271(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the orders, an appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, who has dismissed the same. Further appeals have been preferred before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, against the above ld. CIT (A) orders

SINGARAVEL RAJA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VILLUPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2172/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Singaravel Raja, The Income Tax Officer, 5/459, Pandur Village, Main Road, Vs. Ward-1, Pandur P.O., Ulundurpet Tk, Villupuram. Villupuram – 606 102. Pan: Aoopr 0652P

section 69A of the Act, as the assessee had failed to explain the nature and source of the deposits. The A.O also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

THIMMAIYA GOPALUDU,KRISHNAGIRI vs. ITO, WARD 1, HOSUR, HOSUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2773 & 2774/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012-13

69A of ITA Nos.2773 & 2774/Chny/2024 :- 2 -: the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) towards cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account. 3. The assessee is a retired Village Administrative Officer (VAO) and had deposited cash of Rs. 29,50,000/- during the Financial Year 2011-12. The A.O had reopened the assessment on the ground that the assessee

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TUTICORIN vs. ATHISAYAPANI PRAVIN GEORGE, KAVALKINARU, TIRUNELVELI

In the result the appeal of the department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.180/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2021-2022

penalty under section 271….” 4.0 A bare reading of the statute narrated herein above indicates that a CIT (Appeal) is empowered to admit additional evidence during appellate proceedings which were not or could not be produced during assessment proceedings or in the opinion of the First Appellate Authority are necessary for adjudication of pending appeal with the exception that

ATHISAYA PANI PRAVIN GEORGE,KAVALKINARU RATHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TAXN WARD,, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result the appeal of the department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.180/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2021-2022

penalty under section 271….” 4.0 A bare reading of the statute narrated herein above indicates that a CIT (Appeal) is empowered to admit additional evidence during appellate proceedings which were not or could not be produced during assessment proceedings or in the opinion of the First Appellate Authority are necessary for adjudication of pending appeal with the exception that