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

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

section 263 of the Act and the\nsubmissions of the AR in this respect is also rejected.\n10. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the order passed u/s 143(3)\nr.w.s.153C of the Act dated 28.03.2022 for assessment year 2016-17 is\nerroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, as penalty has not\nbeen initiated u/s

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

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

69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D\nto the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of\nincome furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the\nprovisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been paid on\nor before the end of the relevant previous year

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

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

69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D\nto the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of\nincome furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the\nprovisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been paid on\nor before the end of the relevant previous year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHITRAVEL VETRIMARAN, CHENNAI

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

penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Income -tax Act, 1961. Further,\nsource of repayment of cash loan along with interest needed verification.\nAccordingly, a common satisfaction note was recorded by the Assessing\nOfficer in this regard that the above seized material pertains to the\nassessee, other than the person referred to in section 153A of the Act in the\ngroup case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHITRAVEL VETRIMARAN, CHENNAI

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

penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Income -tax Act, 1961. Further,\nsource of repayment of cash loan along with interest needed verification.\nAccordingly, a common satisfaction note was recorded by the Assessing\nOfficer in this regard that the above seized material pertains to the\nassessee, other than the person referred to in section 153A of the Act in the\ngroup case

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

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly\nallowed

u/s.\n271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income. The Ld.\nDR further pointed out that notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the\nAct, the additional remarks specifically mentioned that the penalty was\nbeing initiated for concealment of income.\n12. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials\navailable on record