CHUNGATH VARGHESE SUNNY,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

68,361 6.33% 41,77,350 2019-20 6,995.08 6,710.87 2,15,18,297 5.50% 11,82,873 2020-21 22,558.52 21,582.48 8,17,38,567 5.70% 46,58,920 2021-22 4,850.65 4,606.78 2,18,88,462 7.30% 15,98,937 12. Aggrieved of the above additions made by the AO, assessee carried

CHUNGATH VARGHESE SUNNY,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

68,361 6.33% 41,77,350 2019-20 6,995.08 6,710.87 2,15,18,297 5.50% 11,82,873 2020-21 22,558.52 21,582.48 8,17,38,567 5.70% 46,58,920 2021-22 4,850.65 4,606.78 2,18,88,462 7.30% 15,98,937 12. Aggrieved of the above additions made by the AO, assessee carried

CHUNGATH VARGHESE SUNNY,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

68,361 6.33% 41,77,350 2019-20 6,995.08 6,710.87 2,15,18,297 5.50% 11,82,873 2020-21 22,558.52 21,582.48 8,17,38,567 5.70% 46,58,920 2021-22 4,850.65 4,606.78 2,18,88,462 7.30% 15,98,937 12. Aggrieved of the above additions made by the AO, assessee carried

CHUNGATH VARGHESE SUNNY,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

68,361 6.33% 41,77,350 2019-20 6,995.08 6,710.87 2,15,18,297 5.50% 11,82,873 2020-21 22,558.52 21,582.48 8,17,38,567 5.70% 46,58,920 2021-22 4,850.65 4,606.78 2,18,88,462 7.30% 15,98,937 12. Aggrieved of the above additions made by the AO, assessee carried

CHUNGATH VARGHESE SUNNY,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

68,361 6.33% 41,77,350 2019-20 6,995.08 6,710.87 2,15,18,297 5.50% 11,82,873 2020-21 22,558.52 21,582.48 8,17,38,567 5.70% 46,58,920 2021-22 4,850.65 4,606.78 2,18,88,462 7.30% 15,98,937 12. Aggrieved of the above additions made by the AO, assessee carried

CHUNGATH VARGHESE SUNNY,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

68,361 6.33% 41,77,350 2019-20 6,995.08 6,710.87 2,15,18,297 5.50% 11,82,873 2020-21 22,558.52 21,582.48 8,17,38,567 5.70% 46,58,920 2021-22 4,850.65 4,606.78 2,18,88,462 7.30% 15,98,937 12. Aggrieved of the above additions made by the AO, assessee carried

CHUNGATH VARGHESE SUNNY,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

68,361 6.33% 41,77,350 2019-20 6,995.08 6,710.87 2,15,18,297 5.50% 11,82,873 2020-21 22,558.52 21,582.48 8,17,38,567 5.70% 46,58,920 2021-22 4,850.65 4,606.78 2,18,88,462 7.30% 15,98,937 12. Aggrieved of the above additions made by the AO, assessee carried

CHUNGATH VARGHESE SUNNY,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

68,361 6.33% 41,77,350 2019-20 6,995.08 6,710.87 2,15,18,297 5.50% 11,82,873 2020-21 22,558.52 21,582.48 8,17,38,567 5.70% 46,58,920 2021-22 4,850.65 4,606.78 2,18,88,462 7.30% 15,98,937 12. Aggrieved of the above additions made by the AO, assessee carried

CHUNGATH VARGHESE SUNNY,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1801 To 1805/Chny/2025 & 1806 To 1810/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021 -22 & 2017-18 To 2021-22 Chungath Varghese Sunny, 275-276, Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan:Ageps-1475-K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Dcit, Central Circle -3(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Ten Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Different Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai 20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Id.Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of The Orders Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(3), Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ao”], U/S.153C R.W.S 143(3)/143(3)/270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] For The Assessment Years (“Ay/Ays”) 2017-18 To 2021-22. These Appeals Bearing Ita Nos.1801 To 1805/Chny/2025 Pertain To The Assessment Orders Passed U/S.153C R.W.S.143(3)/143(3) Of The Act, Whereas The Appeals Bearing Ita Nos.1806 To 1810/Chny/2025 Pertain To The Penalty Orders Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Five Assessment Years Under Consideration Are Identical In Nature & The Arguments Advanced By Both The Parties Are Common, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. We Shall First Address The Quantum Assessments.

68,361 | 6.93% | 45,73,350 | | 2019-20 | 6,995.08 | 6,710.87 | 2,15,18,297 | 5.50% | 11,82,873 | | 2020-21 | 22,558.52 | 21,582.48 | 8,17,38,567 | 5.70% | 46,58,920 | | 2021-22 | 4,850.65 | 4,606.78 | 2,18,88,462 | 7.30% | 15,98,937 | 12. Aggrieved of the above additions made by the AO, assessee carried

CHUNGATH VARGHESE SUNNY,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1801 To 1805/Chny/2025 & 1806 To 1810/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021 -22 & 2017-18 To 2021-22 Chungath Varghese Sunny, 275-276, Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan:Ageps-1475-K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Ten Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Different Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai 20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Id.Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of The Orders Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(3), Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ao”], U/S.153C R.W.S 143(3)/143(3)/270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] For The Assessment Years (“Ay/Ays”) 2017-18 To 2021-22. These Appeals Bearing Ita Nos.1801 To 1805/Chny/2025 Pertain To The Assessment Orders Passed U/S.153C R.W.S.143(3)/143(3) Of The Act, Whereas The Appeals Bearing Ita Nos.1806 To 1810/Chny/2025 Pertain To The Penalty Orders Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Five Assessment Years Under Consideration Are Identical In Nature & The Arguments Advanced By Both The Parties Are Common, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. We Shall First Address The Quantum Assessments.

68,361 | 6.93% | 47,42,350 | | 2019-20 | 6,995.08 | 6,710.87 | 2,15,18,297 | 6.50% | 11,82,873 | | 2020-21 | 22,558.52 | 21,582.48 | 8,17,38,567 | 5.70% | 46,58,920 | | 2021-22 | 4,850.65 | 4,606.78 | 2,18,88,462 | 7.30% | 15,98,937 | 12. Aggrieved of the above additions made by the AO, assessee carried

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been

M/S THE PRESIDENCY CLUB,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.222/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S. The Presidency Club, The Dcit, 51, Fairlawns, Ethiraj Salai, Corporate Circle-3(1), Egmore, Chennai. Chennai-600 008. [Pan: Aabct 1001 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

9) of sec.270A was attracted in this case to warrant levy of penalty for misreporting its income. And the Ld.AR drew our attention to the penalty order and submitted that the AO has not made out a case against the assessee that assessee had misreported its income. In order to appreciate the aforesaid submissions of the Ld.AR, it would

CHITRA RAMANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-17(6), 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.374/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Chitra Ramanathan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4/139,G2 Cozee Waves Apt., Non Corporate Ward 17(6), 7Th Street Swaminathan Nagar, Chennai. Kottivakkam, Chennai 600 041. [Pan:Aigpr5643A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2023 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 01.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Passed Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

68,569/-, being 200% of tax payable. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 270A of the Act. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that against the notice issued under section 270A of the Act, the assessee furnished

OKASI CERAMICS,PERINTHALMANNA vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 779/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 270A(9)(e) of the :-8-: ITA. No: 779/Chny/2022 Act. Grievance of the assessee before us is that, the assessee filed an application in Form no. 68

M/S. CITADINES OMR APARTHOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORP WARD 1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.303/Chny/2026 & Sa No.29/Chny/2026 (Arising Out Of Ita No.303/Chny/2026) िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Citadines Omr Aparthotel Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward-1(3), No.94, Somerset Greenways, Chennai. Sathyadev Avenue, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aadcr 5653C

270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C of section 276CC, if he fulfils the following conditions, namely:— (a) the tax and interest payable as per the order of assessment or reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147, as the case may be, has been paid within the period specified

MUTHUSWAMY MURUGANANDHAM,TIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUVALLUR

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 397/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Muthuswamy Muruganandham, Income Tax Officer, 09-B, Variyar Nagar, Vs. Ward -1, Karthiekeyapuram Road, Tiruvallur. Tiruttani, Tiruvallur – 631 209. [Pan:Aropm-8711-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

270A and levied a penalty of 50% for under-reported income and further held no further interference was called for. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. 10. The ld.AR, assailing the action of Ld.CIT(A), submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SITARAM JEWELLERS, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

270A(9) is initiated separately for under reporting of income in consequence to misreporting of income.” Thus made an addition of Rs.16,22,950/- for the A.Y. 2020-21 and Rs.48,26,392/- for the A.Y. 2021-22. 12. The Assessing Officer also noted that the certain expenditures have been made by the assessee are to be treated as unexplained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SITARAM JEWELLERS, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

270A(9) is initiated separately for under reporting of income in consequence to misreporting of income.” Thus made an addition of Rs.16,22,950/- for the A.Y. 2020-21 and Rs.48,26,392/- for the A.Y. 2021-22. 12. The Assessing Officer also noted that the certain expenditures have been made by the assessee are to be treated as unexplained

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PRUDENTIAL SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED, CHITOOR

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2298/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Prudential Sugar Corporation Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Ltu, Circle -1, Prudential Nagar, Chennai. Koppedu Post, Nindra, Mandal – 517 587. [Pan:Aaacp-4338-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68,898/- during F.Y. 2014-15. C. Operational expenses for F.Y. 2013-14 were Rs.21,022/- which increased to Rs.2,01,187/- during F.Y. 2014-15. Major operations expenses include Audit fees, Bank charges, share trading differences, ROC filing fees, DP charges, professional fees. D. Audit fees for F.Y. 2013-14 is Rs.1