SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1955 & 1956/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sri Maharaja Refineries, # 128, Bhavani Road, Erode-638 004. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Erode. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaffs-8491-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Both Dated 07.06.2024 For

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said [sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264

ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 264, the Assessing Officer completed the reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 264 of the Act on 31.03.2022, determining

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

reassessment made thereon is not maintainable when there is time to complete scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act in response to the revised return of income filed under section 139(5) of the Act. He drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

reassessment or re-computation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

reassessment or re-computation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

reassessment or re-computation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

reassessment or re-computation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264

THE MADRAS SEVA SADAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1246/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2022-23 The Madras Seva Sadan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.7, Shenstone Park, Income Tax (Exemption), Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaatt2871J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R.Venkatanarayanan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

section 264, wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment, the assessee shall be entitled to receive

ACIT CIRCLE 1 , TIRUNELVELI vs. V.SIVASUBRAMANIAN , TIRUNELVELI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1939, 1940, 1941 & 1942/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri V. Sivasubramanian, Income Tax, Circle -1, V. Prop. Santhi Sweets, Nellai City Centre, Rahmath Nagar, Tirunelveli Junction Tirunelveli. Pan : Adlps 1831 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment as referred to in sub- section (1), as the case may be. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section

ACIT CIRCLE 1 , TIRUNELVELI vs. V.SIVASUBRAMANIAN , TIRUNELVELI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1939, 1940, 1941 & 1942/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri V. Sivasubramanian, Income Tax, Circle -1, V. Prop. Santhi Sweets, Nellai City Centre, Rahmath Nagar, Tirunelveli Junction Tirunelveli. Pan : Adlps 1831 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment as referred to in sub- section (1), as the case may be. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section

ACIT CIRCLE 1 , TIRUNELVELI vs. V.SIVASUBRAMANIAN , TIRUNELVELI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1939, 1940, 1941 & 1942/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri V. Sivasubramanian, Income Tax, Circle -1, V. Prop. Santhi Sweets, Nellai City Centre, Rahmath Nagar, Tirunelveli Junction Tirunelveli. Pan : Adlps 1831 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment as referred to in sub- section (1), as the case may be. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

reassessment made thereon is not maintainable when there is time to complete scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act in response to the revised return of income filed under section 139(5) of the Act. He drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional

PRAKASH,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

reassessment. ITA Nos.1218 to 1223/2017 :- 13 -: 10. On merits submission of the ld. Authorised Representative was that opening cash balance as on 01.04.1995 could not be considered for addition for assessment year 1996-97, especially when assessees had filed returns for preceding very many assessment years. As per ld. Authorised Representative if the opening cash balance was accepted there

M.R.PRASAD,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

reassessment. ITA Nos.1218 to 1223/2017 :- 13 -: 10. On merits submission of the ld. Authorised Representative was that opening cash balance as on 01.04.1995 could not be considered for addition for assessment year 1996-97, especially when assessees had filed returns for preceding very many assessment years. As per ld. Authorised Representative if the opening cash balance was accepted there

S.DEVENDRAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

reassessment. ITA Nos.1218 to 1223/2017 :- 13 -: 10. On merits submission of the ld. Authorised Representative was that opening cash balance as on 01.04.1995 could not be considered for addition for assessment year 1996-97, especially when assessees had filed returns for preceding very many assessment years. As per ld. Authorised Representative if the opening cash balance was accepted there

S.DEVENDRAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

reassessment. ITA Nos.1218 to 1223/2017 :- 13 -: 10. On merits submission of the ld. Authorised Representative was that opening cash balance as on 01.04.1995 could not be considered for addition for assessment year 1996-97, especially when assessees had filed returns for preceding very many assessment years. As per ld. Authorised Representative if the opening cash balance was accepted there

M.R.PRASAD,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

reassessment. ITA Nos.1218 to 1223/2017 :- 13 -: 10. On merits submission of the ld. Authorised Representative was that opening cash balance as on 01.04.1995 could not be considered for addition for assessment year 1996-97, especially when assessees had filed returns for preceding very many assessment years. As per ld. Authorised Representative if the opening cash balance was accepted there

PRAKASH,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

reassessment. ITA Nos.1218 to 1223/2017 :- 13 -: 10. On merits submission of the ld. Authorised Representative was that opening cash balance as on 01.04.1995 could not be considered for addition for assessment year 1996-97, especially when assessees had filed returns for preceding very many assessment years. As per ld. Authorised Representative if the opening cash balance was accepted there

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

264 ITR 566 held reassessment — not on basis of mere change of opinion — law same before and after amendment by direct tax laws. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation, 159 ITR 956 held that no case u/s 148 is made out when the facts were known all along with to the revenue while ITA No.1698/Mds