ACIT CC-3(2), `CHENNAI vs. SURYADEV ALLOYS & POWER P LTD, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2), CHENNAI vs. BMP STEELS P LTD, THIRUVALLUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2) , CHENNAI vs. SURYADEV ALLOYS & POWER P LTD , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2), CHENNAI vs. SURYADEV ALLOYS & POWER P LTD, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2), CHENNAI vs. BMP STEELS P LTD, THIRUVALLUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2) , CHENNAI vs. SURYADEV ALLOYS & POWER P LTD , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. BMP STEELS P LTD, THIRUVALLUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2) , CHENNAI vs. SURYADEV ALLOYS & POWER P LTD , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2) , CHENNAI vs. SURYADEV ALLOYS & POWER P LTD , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

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

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

VIRUTCHAM MICRO FINANCE LTD.,MADURAI vs. ITO, CORP. CIRCLE.2,, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1313/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Virutcham Micro Finance Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of C-50, Gurudev Nagar, Avaniyapuram Income Tax, Bypass Road, Madurai 625 002. Corporate Circle 2, Madurai. [Pan:Aaccv9529Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 16.07.2025, We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee. Further, On Perusal Of The Record, We Find That The Notice Issued On 18.06.2025 Returned

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Brief facts emanating from record are that the assessee filed the return of income admitting total income of ₹.35,00,150/- under normal provisions and deemed income of ₹.21,17,239

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

239 Taxman 264 (SC), wherein it is held that since assessee failed to give list of persons who advanced cash to him along with their confirmation in respect of said cash credits, impugned addition was to be confirmed. The onus was upon the assessee to explain the nature and source." 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

239 Taxman 264 (SC), wherein it is held that since assessee failed to give list of persons who advanced cash to him along with their confirmation in respect of said cash credits, impugned addition was to be confirmed. The onus was upon the assessee to explain the nature and source." 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

239 Taxman 264 (SC), wherein it is held that since assessee failed to give list of persons who advanced cash to him along with their confirmation in respect of said cash credits, impugned addition was to be confirmed. The onus was upon the assessee to explain the nature and source." 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

239 Taxman 264 (SC), wherein it is held that since assessee failed to give list of persons who advanced cash to him along with their confirmation in respect of said cash credits, impugned addition was to be confirmed. The onus was upon the assessee to explain the nature and source." 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

239 Taxman 264 (SC), wherein it is held that since assessee failed to give list of persons who advanced cash to him along with their confirmation in respect of said cash credits, impugned addition was to be confirmed. The onus was upon the assessee to explain the nature and source." 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition