SMT. BIMLA DEVI,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Rita Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4D, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aagpr4368A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3264/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aflpa1767N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Shobha Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aaxpc8430H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3266/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Bimla Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aadpd8240L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee with regard to the jurisdiction in concluding the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) has observed and held as under: 6.26. In view of the foregoing discussions, the following position emerges: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not yet laid

SMT. RITA AGARWAL,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Rita Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4D, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aagpr4368A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3264/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aflpa1767N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Shobha Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aaxpc8430H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3266/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Bimla Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aadpd8240L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee with regard to the jurisdiction in concluding the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) has observed and held as under: 6.26. In view of the foregoing discussions, the following position emerges: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not yet laid

SMT. SHOBHA AGARWAL,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Rita Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4D, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aagpr4368A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3264/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aflpa1767N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Shobha Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aaxpc8430H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3266/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Bimla Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aadpd8240L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee with regard to the jurisdiction in concluding the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) has observed and held as under: 6.26. In view of the foregoing discussions, the following position emerges: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not yet laid

B DEVAHIE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3327/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3328/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Late Smt. B. Devahie Acit (Represented By Dr. Balakrishna Central Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Raja – Legal Representative) Chennai. Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Ahupb-6579-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

68 is not based on any incriminating material as found and seized from the assessee during the course of search. The return of income, for both the years, had already been filed by the assessee before the date of search and the same had attained finality. No notice u/s 143(2) was issued till the date of search

B DEVAHIE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3327/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3328/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Late Smt. B. Devahie Acit (Represented By Dr. Balakrishna Central Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Raja – Legal Representative) Chennai. Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Ahupb-6579-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

68 is not based on any incriminating material as found and seized from the assessee during the course of search. The return of income, for both the years, had already been filed by the assessee before the date of search and the same had attained finality. No notice u/s 143(2) was issued till the date of search

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

reassess such income. Proviso to section 147 of course requires that where the assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of the four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

reassess such income. Proviso to section 147 of course requires that where the assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of the four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

reassess such income. Proviso to section 147 of course requires that where the assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of the four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. M/S INDUSTRIAL MINERAL CO., 100% EOU, TUTICORIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

reassess the total income of each of the six assessment years immediately preceding the year in which search action u/s.132 of the Act was initiated or requisition u/s.132A was made. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that total income of the assessee cannot be brought to tax if the scope of Section 153A is limited to only undisclosed income

INDUSTRIAL MINERAL CO, 100%EOU,TUTICORIN vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

reassess the total income of each of the six assessment years immediately preceding the year in which search action u/s.132 of the Act was initiated or requisition u/s.132A was made. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that total income of the assessee cannot be brought to tax if the scope of Section 153A is limited to only undisclosed income

D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, ITA Nos.3340 & 3341 /Chny/2018 stand allowed whereas ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3340/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3341/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri D.R. Balakrishna Raja Acit बनाम/ 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar, Central Circle-3(3), Vs. Chennai-600 014. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agwpd-2354-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.90/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit Shri D.R.Balakrishna Raja, बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar Vs. Chennai-600 014. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agwpd-2354-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-02-2025

68 is not based on any incriminating material as seized from the assessee during the course of search. The return of income, for both the years, had already been filed by the assessee before the date of search and the same had attained finality. No notice u/s 143(2) was issued till the date of search

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(4), CHENNAI vs. D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA, CHENNAI

In the result, ITA Nos.3340 & 3341 /Chny/2018 stand allowed whereas ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3340/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3341/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri D.R. Balakrishna Raja Acit बनाम/ 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar, Central Circle-3(3), Vs. Chennai-600 014. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agwpd-2354-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.90/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit Shri D.R.Balakrishna Raja, बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar Vs. Chennai-600 014. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agwpd-2354-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-02-2025

68 is not based on any incriminating material as seized from the assessee during the course of search. The return of income, for both the years, had already been filed by the assessee before the date of search and the same had attained finality. No notice u/s 143(2) was issued till the date of search

D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, ITA Nos.3340 & 3341 /Chny/2018 stand allowed whereas ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3340/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3341/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri D.R. Balakrishna Raja Acit बनाम/ 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar, Central Circle-3(3), Vs. Chennai-600 014. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agwpd-2354-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.90/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit Shri D.R.Balakrishna Raja, बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar Vs. Chennai-600 014. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agwpd-2354-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-02-2025

68 is not based on any incriminating material as seized from the assessee during the course of search. The return of income, for both the years, had already been filed by the assessee before the date of search and the same had attained finality. No notice u/s 143(2) was issued till the date of search

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

68 (wrongly made by the AO) to S. 69A (corrected by the ld.CIT(A)), the ld.AR stated that the same is not permissible under law and the provisions of section 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

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

68 (wrongly made by the AO) to S. 69A (corrected by the ld.CIT(A)), the ld.AR stated that the same is not permissible under law and the provisions of section 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM KATHIRESAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

reassessment order; then the AO cannot legally proceed further Subramaniam Kathiresan :: 29 :: with the assessment/reassessment and/or make any other items of additions/disallowances, because the jurisdictional fact on the strength of which he assumed section 153A jurisdiction is absent or not in existence. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, and in our considered opinion, this alternate plea of Shri Dudhwewala

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

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

sections": [ "143(3)", "132", "131", "154", "115BBE", "270A", "271(1)(c)", "271AAC", "68", "69", "69A", "69B", "69C", "69D", "246A", "250", "274", "275", "139", "132(4A)", "292C" ], "issues": "Whether the deletions made by the CIT(A) regarding the jewellery addition were justified, and whether the reassessment

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does