ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

reassessment proceedings objected to re-opening of the concluded assessment on jurisdictional ground, wherein, it was claimed that the formation of opinion later to the issuance of intimation u/s.143(1)(a) tantamount to change of opinion and hence only on fresh facts coming to the knowledge of the AO, the assessment can be re-opened. Secondly, it was submitted

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

reassessment proceedings objected to re-opening of the concluded assessment on jurisdictional ground, wherein, it was claimed that the formation of opinion later to the issuance of intimation u/s.143(1)(a) tantamount to change of opinion and hence only on fresh facts coming to the knowledge of the AO, the assessment can be re-opened. Secondly, it was submitted

NATARAJAN,CUDDALORE vs. ITO,ITWARD-1(1) , CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.123/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-2012 Shri Natarajan The Income Tax Officer, 353, Pudupettai Main Road, Vs. International Taxation, Indira Nagar, C. Puthupettai, Ward 2(1), Parangipettai Post, Chennai 600 006 Cuddalore 608 502. Pan: Anfpn 9506Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Irs, Jcit.

129 and hence, the notice dated 14.12.2018 issued by him is also held to be invalid. The invalid notices so issued by the respondents vitiate the entire reassessment proceedings initiated against the appellant. Admittedly, no notice under section 148 was issued by the second respondent, who is the jurisdictional assessing officer, for reassessment of the return of income

CHEYUR RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, BUSINESS WARD - 2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

129 taxmann.com 327 opines that if from and out of the same issue and on the same material, the assessing authority identifies under assessment and other reasons contemplated u/s 147, reopening is valid. It was incumbent upon the appellant to disclosure fall materials necessary for assessment and here the appellant has clearly been found wanting for the Assessing officer

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 is completed as under: Returned Income: Rs.44,86,960/- Assessed Income: Rs.44,86,960/- Income Tax computation sheet and demand notice enclosed’’. The ld. AR further referred the paper book consisting of pages (1-375). The ld. AR specifically pointed out page 232 and page 256 at point 3 which

KAMLESH SHANTILAL JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

147 is based on conjectures, pre-concluded mindset enquires and materials not directly related to the appellants role. 5. Assesses conduct: The Honourable CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee had discharged his responsibility in proving the transactions and it is for the A.O. to disprove them before making an addition or disallowing the claims made

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

u/s 147 of the Act and consequently erred framing the reassessment in terms of section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification.” 3 I.T.A. Nos.2548-2553 & 2673-2674/M/14 2.2 It is evident from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w. section 147

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

u/s 147 of the Act and consequently erred framing the reassessment in terms of section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification.” 3 I.T.A. Nos.2548-2553 & 2673-2674/M/14 2.2 It is evident from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w. section 147

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

u/s 147 of the Act and consequently erred framing the reassessment in terms of section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification.” 3 I.T.A. Nos.2548-2553 & 2673-2674/M/14 2.2 It is evident from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w. section 147

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

u/s 147 of the Act and consequently erred framing the reassessment in terms of section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification.” 3 I.T.A. Nos.2548-2553 & 2673-2674/M/14 2.2 It is evident from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w. section 147

P. RAVIKUMAR,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAMAKKAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

129 on 24.8.2018.\nThe appellant filed the return of income on 25.8.2018 admitting total income of\nRs.1,18,500/-. As per the facts of the case, as the return was filed on 25.8.2018 for\nA.Y. 2011-12, the due date for filing the return was 31.3.2012. In case the return\nwould have been filed on or before the due date

K.SUGANTHI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s. 142(1l) dated 30.11.2017 was issued and served on the assessee on 01.12.2017. In response, assessee's Authorised Representative Shri K. Swaminathan appeared on 07. 12.2017 and filed details called for. The case was discussed and adjourned to 11.12.2017. Subsequently, assessee filed reply on 14.12.2017 and 22.12.2017 in response to the queries raised during the personal hearing. 8.1 Accordingly

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

reassessment order properly to the best of his ability. Section 114(f) of the evidence Act says: ‘The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case

ACIT, NCC-22,, CHENNAI vs. SMT. RAJESWARI KUMAR, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3286/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rajeswari Kumar, The Acit, No.9, Vellakottai, Non-Corporate Circle 22, Vs. Tmk Variyar Avenue, Tambaram, Chennai. Keelakattalai, Chennai – 600 117. Pan: Aafpk 0536J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.: 2/Chny/2020 [In I.T.A. No.3286/Chny/2019] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rajeswari Kumar, The Acit, No.9, Vellakottai, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 22, Tmk Variyar Avenue, Tambaram, Chennai. Keelakattalai, Chennai – 600 117. Pan: Aafpk 0536J (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"/Appellant) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022

reassessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, by stating that the reopening has been made merely on change of opinion. Aggrieved, Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment supplied by Revenue

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

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

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

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

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

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

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

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available