BHARAT KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-4(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.784/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bharat Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 152, 10Th Street, Deber Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 4(5), Vyasarpadi 600 039,Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Bfhpb6487D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R.S. Hithesh, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Bengaluru For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri R.S. Hithesh, Advocate Placed On Record Memo Of Additional Ground & Requested To Take Up The Said Additional Ground As Preliminary Issue. After Hearing Both The Parties, I Am Inclined To Treat The Additional Ground As Preliminary Issue.

68 of the Act. She vehemently argued that the order relied on by the ld. AR in the case of Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi v. ITO (supra) is highly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. After hearing both the parties, I find force in the argument of the ld. DR in submitting that

GS & SD ASSOCIATES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2767/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gs & Sd Associates, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 03, Vania Street, Kundrathur, Non Corporate Ward 8(2), Chennai 600 069. Chennai. [Pan:Aaqfg8838C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [“Act” In Short].

133(6) of the Act. No doubt, the Assessing Officer did not accept the said contention of that there was no opportunity to partner Mr. G. Srinivasan to give reply as the notice was sent through “don’t reply income tax mail address”. Anyway, the information of the infusion of the capital by the said partner were available before

SAI TELECOM,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2534/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Sai Telecom, The Income Tax Officer, No.407, 4Th Floor, Kaveri Complex, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-3(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Abrfs-4178-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023

section 133 (6) of the Act was issued to Sh.A.M. Mohan on 25/11/2016 requesting him to furnish the relevant documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of :- 13 -: the transaction and his credit worthiness. In reply, Sh.A.M. Mohan furnished the written submission dated 28/02/2017 stating therein that he is not an existing assessee and his nature of source of income

M/S. PRASANTH M PAUN (HUF),,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10 (3),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.479/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Prasanth M Paun (Huf), The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Flat No. 2, Darshan Residency, Door Non Corporate Ward 10(3), No. 18, Medavakkam Tank Road, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 023. [Pan:Aaihp1298R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai Dated 30.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 59 Days, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition In Support Of An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay Explaining The Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Prayed That The Delay May Be Condoned & Admitted The 2

6) of the Act. Under these facts and circumstances, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not justified and accordingly, the addition made under section 68 of the Act stands deleted. So far as credit of ₹.7,00,000/- is concerned, the Assessing 4.1 Officer has sent a letter dated 20.06.2016 to RBS Chennai under section 133

SEKAR JAYALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-22(2), WEST TAMBARAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.20/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Doshi – Nakshatra-1, Old Sbi Colony, Non Corporate Ward 22(2), Near Rto, 2E Swathi Block, West Tambaram. Tambaram, Tamil Nadu 600 045. [Pan:Awipj1285G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.N. Rangamani, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Dated 12.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 248 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted For Adjudication.

68 of the Act. I find merit into the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that there is no power conferred upon the ld. CIT(A) to assess a particular item under different provision of the Act what the Assessing Officer had done without giving a specific notice to the assessee regarding such action

ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

133(6) were issued to these parties. 32 parties responded with confirmations and ledgers. In 4 cases, either balance was NIL or confirmations were not received. However, in respect of 12 parties, trade advances aggregating to ₹1,70,16,220/- remained unsettled for more than 5 years. Based on the prolonged non-settlement of trade advances received

ARUMUGAM SIVASANKARAN,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD-4,, CUDDAORE

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.553/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arumugam Sivasankaran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 160, National Agencies Ward 4, Main Road, Vasistapuram, Tittagudi, Cuddalore. Cuddalore 606 106. [Pan:Adqps5673J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.12.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Agra For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made Under Section 69A Of The 2

133(6) of the Act was also issued to the Canara Bank, Agaramsigoor Branch. After verification of bank details as reflected at pages 2 to 5, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made cash deposit during the demonetization period to the tune of ₹.2,60,000/- in SBNs and accordingly, treated the same as unexplained money under section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. K.I. (INTERNATIONAL) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

6 I.T.A. Nos.897-898/M/17 The point wise reply of the assertions made by Praveen Kumar Jain and the common readings of all the affidavits filed, clearly go to establish that it is an afterthought given by Praveen Kumar Jain, when the information pertaining to the beneficiaries for AY 2007-08 was disseminated to the field that such affidavits have been filed

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. K.I. (INTERNATIONAL) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

6 I.T.A. Nos.897-898/M/17 The point wise reply of the assertions made by Praveen Kumar Jain and the common readings of all the affidavits filed, clearly go to establish that it is an afterthought given by Praveen Kumar Jain, when the information pertaining to the beneficiaries for AY 2007-08 was disseminated to the field that such affidavits have been filed

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

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

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

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

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, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

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

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

RAVIRAJ VARADHARAJ,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,NCW 8(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2468/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 & S.A. No. 85/Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 2468/Chny/2025] Raviraj Varadharaj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 16/08, Duraisamy Colony, Non Corporate Ward 8(2), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan:Amopv6065A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Swaminathan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Ground No. A, Raised By The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 3. It is noted that the Assessing Officer discussed the said issue from pages 6 to 8 of the assessment order, wherein, it was requested by the assessee to give sufficient time to provide explanation and evidence and for non-submission of the same, the Assessing Officer added the entire

SHI vs. U CANADIAN CLEAR WATERS LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ITO CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

section applies only to a case where “an allowance or deduction is allowed in a particular year and subsequently __ ". b. If the addition is vs Sec 68, the addition cannot be sustained U/ s.68 with regard to opening balance as at beginning of the year i.e., 1.4.2013. This proposition is supported by the Rajasthan High Court decision

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. MANOJ PRAKASHAN P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.107/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Manoj Prakashan P. Ltd., Income Tax, V. Door No.4/7, Srinivasa Avenue Road, Company Circle Iv(1), R.A. Puram, Chennai - 600 028. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aadcm 1285 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). One Shri Lalith Kumar Sharma and Smt. Mayuri Sharma were said to have contributed to the share application. On investigation, the Assessing Officer found that the address given by the assessee with regard to above said two persons is not correct. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer

SETHU PILLAI NAGALINGAM,THIRUVARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, THIRUVARUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1241/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sethu Pillai Nagalingam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 6, Anna Square, Ward 1, Thiruvarur 610 001. Tiruvarur. [Pan:Aadpn3943J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2025 Passed By The Addl. Jcit(A)-7, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 8 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Treating Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period As 2

133(6) of the Act. On verification of the bank statement, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the source for cash deposits of ₹.3,39,72,710/- and the assessee also filed explanation. On verification of bank accounts, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee made cash deposits of ₹.7,11,000/- in SBN during demonetization period

M/S CIGFILLIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

68,400 7-May-2015 15-May-2015 6. 2012-13 (Q4) (26Q) 1,44,400 7-May-2015 15-

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

68,400 7-May-2015 15-May-2015 6. 2012-13 (Q4) (26Q) 1,44,400 7-May-2015 15-