SUNDARAM SANKAR ANAND,KARUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

Unexplained - - - - - - 73,25,679 investment in immovable property 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld.CIT(A). Vide separate orders dated 19.12.2023, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the assessment orders and sustaining the additions made by the AO. 9. Aggrieved with the orders of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee

SUNDARAM SANKAR ANAND,KARUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

Unexplained - - - - - - 73,25,679 investment in immovable property 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld.CIT(A). Vide separate orders dated 19.12.2023, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the assessment orders and sustaining the additions made by the AO. 9. Aggrieved with the orders of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee

SUNDARAM SANKAR ANAND,KARUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

Unexplained - - - - - - 73,25,679 investment in immovable property 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld.CIT(A). Vide separate orders dated 19.12.2023, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the assessment orders and sustaining the additions made by the AO. 9. Aggrieved with the orders of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee

SUNDARAM SANKAR ANAND,KARUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

Unexplained - - - - - - 73,25,679 investment in immovable property 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld.CIT(A). Vide separate orders dated 19.12.2023, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the assessment orders and sustaining the additions made by the AO. 9. Aggrieved with the orders of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee

M/S VARALAKSHMI STARCH INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SALEM vs. CIT (APPEAL)-18 , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 723 & 724/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

unexplained investment in the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. 10. The assessee has relied upon the following judicial precedents in support of their arguments. The case laws relied :-15-: ITA. Nos: 723 & 724/Chny/2022 upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee are discussed as under: a) Principal CIT V. Abhisar Buildwell

M/S VARALAKSHMI STARCH INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SALEM vs. CIT (APPEAL)-18 , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 723 & 724/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

unexplained investment in the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. 10. The assessee has relied upon the following judicial precedents in support of their arguments. The case laws relied :-15-: ITA. Nos: 723 & 724/Chny/2022 upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee are discussed as under: a) Principal CIT V. Abhisar Buildwell

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUMGAMBAKKAM vs. JAGANNATHAN SEKAT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the of Rs.51.75 crores made by way of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the of Rs.51.75 crores made by way of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act on merits. We first take up the legal issue of jurisdiction of the AO to Act on merits. We first take up the legal issue of jurisdiction

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

unexplained investment during the year under appeal. Upon\nverification of these details, the Id. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition to that\nextent.\nIt was further submitted that out of the total addition of Rs. 57,38,29,877/-, the Id.\nCIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs. 1,54,63,996/-, which according to the\nassessee, was also unsustainable

BALASUBRAMANIAM PALANIAPPAN,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), ERODE, ERODE

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1398/Chny/2023. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Balasubramaniam Palaniappan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.10, Narayanasamy Street, Ward 1(5) N.G.G.O. Colony, Surampatti, Erode. Erode 638 009. [Pan: Aljpp 2779F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

reassessment, the assessee has come out with explanation that cash deposits found in her bank account is out of contract receipts which was not disclosed to income-tax purpose, however, admitted before the Assessing Officer that net profit may be estimated by applying provisions of section 44AD of the Act. The Assessing Officer has accepted the explanation furnished

KALYANASUNDARAM SURESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.297/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. 12-A, New No. 24, Income Tax, Swarnamangalam East Road, West Non Corporate Circle 2, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. [Pan: Aobps4696F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate Drew Our Attention To The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Filed On 10.12.2023 & Submits That The Said 3 Grounds Of Appeal May Be Taken Up First The Ld. Dr Shri R.V.

unexplained investment in these assessment years. For better understanding, relevant portions in page 3 to 6 of the impugned order are reproduced herein below: 10. The next common ground for all the A.Ys 2008-09 to 2012 -13 is with regard to validity of exercise of re-drawing cash book. Now we consider the facts relating to the asst. years

SUNDARAM SANKAR ANAND,KARUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed\nassessments/unabated assessments.\"\n22.\nIn the present case, the Revenue has failed to bring on record any seized\ndocuments, material, or evidence that can be said to constitute incriminating\nmaterial relating to the impugned additions. The additions have been made on\nthe basis of a sworn statement and the Balance

CHENNIAPPA GOUNDER DEIVASIGAMANI,KANGAYAM vs. WARD I(4) / TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2380/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Chenniappa Gounder The Income Tax Officer, Deivasigamani, Vs. Ward 1(4), 565/4-A, Tirupur Sivamathy Modern Rice Mill, Agasthilingampalayam Road, Tiruppur – 638 701. Pan: Aenpd 8814L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Harinandha Kumar, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

reassessment proceedings, assessee had submitted that total cash deposits made during the demonetization period i.e., from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 was Rs.33,06,000/-. As regards the source of the aforesaid cash deposits, assessee submitted that opening cash balance as on 08.11.2016 was Rs.29,60,157/- and cash receipts / cash sales during the demonetization period was Rs.20

SEETHARAMAN BAKTHAVATSALAM,TRICHY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), TRICHY, TRICHY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

unexplained investment, when it is apparent from the face of the records that, the additions made in the original reassessment

SEETHARAMAN BAKTHAVATSALAM,TRICHY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), TRICHY, TRICHY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

unexplained investment, when it is apparent from the face of the records that, the additions made in the original reassessment

SEETHARAMAN BAKTHAVATSALAM,TRICHY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), TRICHY, TRICHY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

unexplained investment, when it is apparent from the face of the records that, the additions made in the original reassessment

SEETHARAMAN BAKTHAVATSALAM,TRICHY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), TRICHY, TRICHY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

unexplained investment, when it is apparent from the face of the records that, the additions made in the original reassessment

SEETHARAMAN BAKTHAVATSALAM,TRICHY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), TRICHY, TRICHY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

unexplained investment, when it is apparent from the face of the records that, the additions made in the original reassessment

SMT.PREMA DEVI, L/R OF LATE.SHRI. DHARMICHAND,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 563 To 567/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 Smt. Prema Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of L/R. Of Late. Shri. Dharmichand Jain, Vs. Income Tax, No.37, Arumuga Achari Street, Central Circle 2(1), Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Avspp-5090-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Unexplained investment in pawn 1,08,07,000 70,28,600 loan Undisclosed interest on pawn loan 8,46,139 8,78,903 Undisclosed interest on pawn loan 25,93,680 10,70,136 9. The assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-19 [CIT(A)], challenging the same on grounds