DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. MS DAR PARADISE PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

131(1A) could not disprove this claim by bringing out any discrepancies :-20-: ITA. No: 1106/Chny/2023 in the purchases, sales and closing Stock as on the dates of enquiries 6.17 Further, the cash deposited in the demonetized currency added as income of the assessee by applying the provisions of section 68

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)

section 68 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, further referring to the assessment order submitted that 17 I.T.A. Nos.3263-3266/Chny/19 the Assessing Officer has made addition on the basis of bank statement, which was filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, but such bank statement was already with the Assessing Officer and thus

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)

section 68 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, further referring to the assessment order submitted that 17 I.T.A. Nos.3263-3266/Chny/19 the Assessing Officer has made addition on the basis of bank statement, which was filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, but such bank statement was already with the Assessing Officer and thus

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)

section 68 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, further referring to the assessment order submitted that 17 I.T.A. Nos.3263-3266/Chny/19 the Assessing Officer has made addition on the basis of bank statement, which was filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, but such bank statement was already with the Assessing Officer and thus

SHRI PANKAJ AGARWAL,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, 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)

section 68 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, further referring to the assessment order submitted that 17 I.T.A. Nos.3263-3266/Chny/19 the Assessing Officer has made addition on the basis of bank statement, which was filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, but such bank statement was already with the Assessing Officer and thus

MRS. USHA KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2780/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mrs. Usha Krishnan, The Income Tax Officer, No.9/1, Eighth Street, V. Non Corporate Ward - 18(3), Nanganallur, Chennai - 600 061. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aahpu 1864 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2 I.T.A. No.2780/Mds/16 (in short 'the Act'). According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee has received gifts from her husband and other close relatives. All the relatives who gifted money to the assessee were summoned by the Assessing Officer under Section 131

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. J VIVEK, THIRUVARUR

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1778/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. J. Vivek, Income Tax, No. 32/1, Mannai Nagar, Mannargudi, Central Circle 2(4), Thiruvarur 614 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aqqpv7997M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. S. Jecintha, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

68 of the Act. Thereafter, by considering the rectification application of the assessee under section 154 of the Act, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹.4,40,51,970/- vide his order dated 24.06.2020. 4. Having aggrieved by the order made under section 69A of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 47(xiv) have been fulfilled by the assessee. The Ld.AR has contended that the same is not affected by the provisions of section 49(1)(iii)(e) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the issue is that of interpretation of the proviso to section 47(xiv) of the Act. The revenue has filed

SMT. DEVAKUMARI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-11, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.Corrigendum To I.T.A. No.3066/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Devakumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 48, Venkata Maistry Street, Income Tax, Mannady, Chennai 600 001. Non Corporate Circle 11, [Pan:Aagpd0150L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) शु""प" आदेश /Corrignendum Order Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No. 3066/Chny/2019 As Well As The Appeal Filed By The Revenue In Ita No. 3181/Chny/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Were Disposed Off By The Division Bench ‘B’, Chennai Benches, Chennai Vide Common Order Dated 13.09.2023. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Brought To The Notice That There Is A Typographical Error In Last Sentence In Para 9 Of The Order, Wherein, The Bench Has Observed That The Element Of Personal Usage Cannot Be Ruled Out In The Absence Of Production Of Electricity Bills & Thereby, The Addition To The Extent Of ₹.2,00,000/- Has Been Sustained Out Of Addition Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A). However, It Was Also Mentioned That The “Balance Addition Of ₹.3,00,000/- Stands Sustained” Is A Typographical Error.

68 of the Act. 6.2 Before the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed an appeal against deletion of addition towards unsecured loans taken to the extent of ₹.2.40 crores as well as allowing the interest of ₹.7,62,738/- on the above unsecured loans. Against the total deletion of addition towards unsecured loans of ₹.2,85,00,000/-, by accepting

ACIT, NCC-11,, CHENNAI vs. SMT. DEVAKUMARI,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3066/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Devakumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 48, Venkata Maistry Street, Income Tax, Mannady, Chennai 600 001. Non Corporate Circle 11, Chennai. [Pan:Aagpd0150L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3181/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Devakumari, Income Tax, No. 48, Venkata Maistry Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), Mannady, Chennai 600 001. Chennai.

68 of the Act. 6.2 Before the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed an appeal against deletion of addition towards unsecured loans taken to the extent of ₹.2.40 crores as well as allowing the interest of ₹.7,62,738/- on the above unsecured loans. Against the total deletion of addition towards unsecured loans of ₹.2,85,00,000/-, by accepting

S.BAGAVATHI RAJAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 23(10, TAMBARAM

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:2876/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011 - 2012 Smt. S. Bagavathi Rajam, Phase 2, Villa 17, Chettinad Enclave, Pallikaranai, Chennai - 600100 अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Awhps2925B …………… Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Circle 23(1), ""थ"/Respondent Tambaram …………… Appearances: For The Appellant/Assessee : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate For The Respondent/Department : Shri G Johnson, Addl. Cit Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 26 .08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary:

68 of the Act by identifying the source of cash deposits. However, the Assessing Officer rejected explanation offered by the Appellant regarding source of cash on the ground that the Appellant had, on one hand, taken a stand that the Appellant was not maintaining any books of accounts, while on the other hand, the Appellant was relying upon statement

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

131 of the Act wherein he had stated that, the accounts section is separate and he is Act wherein he had stated that, the accounts section is separate and he is Act wherein he had stated that, the accounts section is separate and he is not aware as to the manner in which account entries are made

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

131 of the Act wherein he had stated that, the accounts section is separate and he is Act wherein he had stated that, the accounts section is separate and he is Act wherein he had stated that, the accounts section is separate and he is not aware as to the manner in which account entries are made

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

131 of the Act wherein he had stated that, the accounts section is separate and he is Act wherein he had stated that, the accounts section is separate and he is Act wherein he had stated that, the accounts section is separate and he is not aware as to the manner in which account entries are made

SOMASUNDARAM VIGNESHWARAN,MADURAI vs. ACIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) -1, MUDARAI, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy, S.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1728/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Somasundaram Vigneshwaran, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Meenakshi Kovil Street, Income Tax, Sri Meenakshi Complex, 1St Floor, Central Circle 1, Madurai 625 001. Madurai. [Pan: Akppv0081K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Adjournment Petition. On Examination Of The Record, It Is Noted That The Assessee Filed This Appeal On 14.06.2025 & After Scrutiny, The Registry, Itat Chennai Benches Issued Notice

68 of the Act in A.Y. 2021-22. The AO acknowledged this and assessed the amount protectively u/s 69A of the Act in A.Y. 2022-23, with the balance Rs.2,74,19,095/- (i.e., Rs.2.94 Crores minus Rs. 19.80 lakhs) assessed substantively u/s 69A. Thus, the charge of double taxation does not hold good, 6.3.23 The provisions of section

SHRI MUKESH AGARWAL,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3093/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. Mr.Mukesh Agarwal, The Dy. Commissioner- No.127A, Brickline Road, Flat 3181, Of Income Tax, Tvh Kumbini Square, 18Th Floor, Central Circle-3(2), 3Rd Block, Purasawalkam, Chennai. Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aafpk 6968 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 68 of the Act had no application to the facts of the present case and further ought to have appreciated that the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the unsecured loans despite establishing the identity of the contributor/creditor as well as the genuineness of the transactions was wholly unjustified and unsustainable

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 68 of the Act, in our opinion can be invoked only for those amounts which are not reflected in sales. Thus, while holding that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the addition for credits in bullion margin money account, we direct

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 68 of the Act, in our opinion can be invoked only for those amounts which are not reflected in sales. Thus, while holding that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the addition for credits in bullion margin money account, we direct

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 68 of the Act, in our opinion can be invoked only for those amounts which are not reflected in sales. Thus, while holding that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the addition for credits in bullion margin money account, we direct