PAZHANIVEL THANGARASU,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD-1,, CUDDALORE

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

reassessment has been completed without complying with the statutory requirements of law. Addition of Rs.36,75,250/- as unexplained money

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

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

unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 9. That the appellant craves the leave of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench to add/delete/revise/adduce additional grounds in support of its contentions before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. :-6-: ITA. No:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 6. The brief facts of the case as emanating from

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 9. That the appellant craves the leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench to add/delete/revise/adduce additional grounds in support of its contentions before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. :-6-: ITA. No:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 ITA No.3046/Chny/2025 (Α.Υ.2015-16) 6. The brief facts

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : : 16.12.2025 : 01.01.2026 These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 9. That the appellant craves the leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench to add/delete/revise/adduce additional grounds in support of its contentions before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. ITA No.3046/Chny/2025 (A.Y.2015-16) 6. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the records

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

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act for the AY 2017-18. 6. Similarly, for the assessment year 2019-20, on an identical facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹.90,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act. 7. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and filed detailed ground-wise written submissions which

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

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act for the AY 2017-18. 6. Similarly, for the assessment year 2019-20, on an identical facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹.90,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act. 7. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and filed detailed ground-wise written submissions which

PERUR BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE WARD 1, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act is contrary to the law, facts, and circumstances of the case and hence liable to be deleted. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in disregarding the explanations and documentations provided by the Appellant to substantiate the fact that the deposits were received by it inadvertently and it has taken all efforts to remit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. NEELARAJ VINOTH, PERAMBALUR

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2024 & C.O.No. 60/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Neelaraj Vinoth, 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Perambalur – 621 212, Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (Respondent/Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2119/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelaraj Vinoth, 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Perambalur – 621 212, Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Trichy. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate Department By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: :-2-:

unexplained while the investment itself ceased to exist on the date of search due its cancellation by the allotter. Consequentially the sources from where investment were also returned. Thus, the AO has erroneously brought to tax an investment which does not exist. 6. The assessee also raised a legal ground questioning the jurisdiction, absence of incriminating material, absence of satisfaction

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

money given to Krishnan who is an auditor Dec-15 Krishnan Sir 5500000 This is cash given to auditor Krishnan Apr-17 Krishnan Sir- Income 15000000 This is cash given to auditor Tax Krishnan 5. The case of the assessee was centralized to Central Circle 1(2), Chennai, and notice u/s.153C of the Act was issued on 12.02.2021 covering various

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

money given to Krishnan who is an auditor Dec-15 Krishnan Sir 5500000 This is cash given to auditor Krishnan Apr-17 Krishnan Sir- Income 15000000 This is cash given to auditor Tax Krishnan 5. The case of the assessee was centralized to Central Circle 1(2), Chennai, and notice u/s.153C of the Act was issued on 12.02.2021 covering various

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

money given to Krishnan who is an auditor Dec-15 Krishnan Sir 5500000 This is cash given to auditor Krishnan Apr-17 Krishnan Sir- Income 15000000 This is cash given to auditor Tax Krishnan 5. The case of the assessee was centralized to Central Circle 1(2), Chennai, and notice u/s.153C of the Act was issued on 12.02.2021 covering various

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

money given to Krishnan who is an auditor Dec-15 Krishnan Sir 5500000 This is cash given to auditor Krishnan Apr-17 Krishnan Sir- Income 15000000 This is cash given to auditor Tax Krishnan 5. The case of the assessee was centralized to Central Circle 1(2), Chennai, and notice u/s.153C of the Act was issued on 12.02.2021 covering various

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

money given to Krishnan who is an auditor Dec-15 Krishnan Sir 5500000 This is cash given to auditor Krishnan Apr-17 Krishnan Sir- Income 15000000 This is cash given to auditor Tax Krishnan 5. The case of the assessee was centralized to Central Circle 1(2), Chennai, and notice u/s.153C of the Act was issued on 12.02.2021 covering various

BANGALORE UNION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings with consequent additions on account of deemed dividend and unexplained money as involving not acceptable additions as per the facts

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

HAMASAMANI SILKS,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2664/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & S.A. No.100/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.2664/Chny/2025] िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18

unexplained money and therefore, the Ld.Sr.DR requested to confirm the order of the lower authorities. 5. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. From reassessment

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

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

unexplained and the income earned out of such transaction or fact or evidence has escaped the scope of taxation while it should have been Returned to income or assessed to tax had it been disclosed in the right manner. Incriminating material need not necessarily be something tangible. It not only includes any assets, documents, entry in books of accounts

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

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

unexplained and the income earned out of such transaction or fact or evidence has escaped the scope of taxation while it should have been Returned to income or assessed to tax had it been disclosed in the right manner. Incriminating material need not necessarily be something tangible. It not only includes any assets, documents, entry in books of accounts

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

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

unexplained and the income earned out of such transaction or fact or evidence has escaped the scope of taxation while it should have been Returned to income or assessed to tax had it been disclosed in the right manner. Incriminating material need not necessarily be something tangible. It not only includes any assets, documents, entry in books of accounts