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, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

section 69 of the Act cannot be\ninvoked. The Revenue has not brought any material on record to rebut the\nassessee's explanation. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.1,54,63,996/- sustained\nby the Id. CIT(A) u/s.69 of the Act is deleted.\nIn the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\n13. ITA No.1639/Chny/2025 for the A.Y.2015-16 – Department

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

section 69 of the Act cannot be\ninvoked. The Revenue has not brought any material on record to rebut the\nassessee's explanation. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.1,54,63,996/- sustained\nby the Id. CIT(A) u/s.69 of the Act is deleted.\nIn the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\n13. ITA No.1639/Chny/2025 for the A.Y.2015-16 – Department

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

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

section 69 of the Act collapses.\nIn the absence of any material to demonstrate that the impugned amounts\nrepresented unexplained investments made during the year under consideration,\nthe addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted in toto. The Id. AR accordingly\nprayed that not only the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A) be upheld, but also

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), 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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 250 and 251 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled 251 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled 251 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry as he thinks fit and may pass such other order in make such enquiry as he thinks

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 250 and 251 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled 251 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled 251 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry as he thinks fit and may pass such other order in make such enquiry as he thinks

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 250 and 251 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled 251 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled 251 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry as he thinks fit and may pass such other order in make such enquiry as he thinks