ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the extent that at the initiation stage formation of reasonable belief

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

251(1)(a) provides the ld.CIT(A) :-19-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 could enhance such an assessment qua the under-assessed sum i.e. where the AO had dealt the issue in the assessment and was the subject matter of appeal. In the present case the AO restricted himself to expenditure disallowance only, enhancement must also be confined

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

251(1)(a) provides the Ild.CIT(A) PAGE-19 :-19-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 could enhance such an assessment qua the under-assessed sum i.e. where the AO had dealt the issue in the assessment and was the subject matter of appeal. In the present case the AO restricted himself to expenditure disallowance only, enhancement must also

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

251(1)(a) provides the Ild.CIT(A) could enhance such an assessment qua the under-assessed sum i.e. where the AO had dealt the issue in the assessment and was the subject matter of appeal. In the present case the AO restricted himself to expenditure disallowance only, enhancement must also be confined to that issue. Further, the AO never examined

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

251(1)(a) provides the ld.CIT(A) :-19-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 could enhance such an assessment qua the under-assessed sum i.e. where the AO had dealt the issue in the assessment and was the subject matter of appeal. In the present case the AO restricted himself to expenditure disallowance only, enhancement must also be confined

POSHAK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 8

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

251(1) (a). 3. Limitation:- 3.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the order u/s. 154 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is barred by limitation since four years have expired from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed as per section

SUNDARAM SUBRAMANIAN,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

251(1)(a), and even otherwise, the same cannot be undertaken , without bringing to the notice of the assessee. :-6-: ITA. Nos:2419 & 2420/Chny/2025 14. The ld.AR pushed his cause, by emphasizing that the addition is not sustainable when the books of account were omitted to be rejected by the AO as per section

SUNDARAM SUBRAMANIAN REP. BY LEGAL HEIR S SUNDARAM,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

251(1)(a), and even otherwise, the same cannot be undertaken , without bringing to the notice of the assessee. :-6-: ITA. Nos:2419 & 2420/Chny/2025 14. The ld.AR pushed his cause, by emphasizing that the addition is not sustainable when the books of account were omitted to be rejected by the AO as per section

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

251(1)(a) of the Act. The declaration of law is clear that the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is coterminus with that of the Income Tax Officer, if that be so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

251(1)(a) of the Act. The declaration of law is clear that the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is coterminus with that of the Income Tax Officer, if that be so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

251(1)(a) of the Act. The declaration of law is clear that the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is coterminus with that of the Income Tax Officer, if that be so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERAALS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

251 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry as he thinks fit and may pass such other order in Appeal as he thinks fit. as he thinks

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERAALS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

251 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry as he thinks fit and may pass such other order in Appeal as he thinks fit. as he thinks

SUDHA RAMANI,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3352/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sudha Ramani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat A3, 862, Siddharth Manor, Non Corporate Ward 10(3), Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Ahepr9857M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Raised 3 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified

reassessment was completed, inter alia, making addition of ₹.30,00,000/- towards unexplained investment, under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. We note that out of total investment of ₹.65,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer treated only a sum of ₹.30,00,000/- as unexplained investment. 4. Having aggrieved by the order

SATISH KHANNA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:415/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2015-16

reassessment proceedings void. 5. Without Prejudice, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law by enhancing the scope of Assessment to the availability, form, and liquidation of the Appellant’s capital, which were never part of the Learned Assessing Officer’s original proceedings. 6. Without Prejudice, the Learned CIT(A) acted in contravention of Section 251

GRACE JAYANTHI RANI, REP. BY JCD PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:523/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Grace Jayanthi Rani, The Income Tax Officer, Represented By J C D Prabhakar, Vs. Corporate Circle 1(1), No.1, 4Th Avenue, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. [Pan:Aeppc-1579-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) on the following grounds: 1. The impugned order is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have considered that the reopening of the Assessment is without jurisdiction and as such unsustainable

SARAVANAN,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TIRUPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

reassessment was due to then prevailing covid period, thereby not exercising the discretion vested under Proviso to Section 251(1)(a) properly

SARAVANAN,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TIRUPPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

reassessment was due to then prevailing covid period, thereby not exercising the discretion vested under Proviso to Section 251(1)(a) properly