DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D\nfor any previous

SUMERMAL KANTILAL JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1011/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Gautham Chand Jain, Assistant Commissioner Of No. 13, 3Rd Street, V. Income Tax, Balgota Villa, Central Circle 1(1), Sambier Street, Gandhi Salai, Chennai -600 034. Seven Wells, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aahpg-0295-J] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1012/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sumermal Kantilal Jain, Assistant Commissioner Of 104/A6, Govindappa Naicken V. Income Tax, Street, George Town, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaopj-1866-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Dr. Ca. Abhishek Murali, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2023

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

GAUTHAM CHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1011/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Gautham Chand Jain, Assistant Commissioner Of No. 13, 3Rd Street, V. Income Tax, Balgota Villa, Central Circle 1(1), Sambier Street, Gandhi Salai, Chennai -600 034. Seven Wells, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aahpg-0295-J] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1012/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sumermal Kantilal Jain, Assistant Commissioner Of 104/A6, Govindappa Naicken V. Income Tax, Street, George Town, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaopj-1866-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Dr. Ca. Abhishek Murali, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2023

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D\nfor any previous

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY vs. M/S MANGAL & MANGAL, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 772/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal & Mangal, Income Tax, V. 25, N.S.B. Road, Teppakulam, Central Circle -2, Trichy – 620 002. No. 44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaifm-3378-B] Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B & 69C of the Act. In case, any income is assessed under any head of income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. JAYARAJ JAISON, TIRUNELVELI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2512/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Jayaraj Jaison, Income Tax, Vs. No.9/10, Prop: Jaison Bkery, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Kavalkinaru, Tirunelveli – 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan:Akgpj-2821-E] (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman,C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai (‘Ld.Cit(A)’ In Short), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Madurai (‘Ao’ In Short), For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’ In Short) 2020-21. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 68 / 69B r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The assessee was also specifically required to substantiate the genuineness and creditworthiness

HUSSAIN MOHIDEEN IBRAHIM SHA,CHENNAI vs. JACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section

ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY vs. M/S SARATHA'S , TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

68,719/- is to be assessed "valuable article or thing" within the meaning of Section 69B of the Income

M/S OVERSEAS LEATHERS,RANIPET vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 962/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Overseas Leathers, Deputy Commissioner Of No. 131, Sidco Industrial V. Income-Tax, Estates, Central Circle -3(3), Sipcot, Ranipet, Ranipet New No. 46, Old No. 108, District – 632 403 Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aaafo-0375-L] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023

69B providing for amounts of investments in Bullion, Jewellery or other valuable articles (including excess Stocks as wel) would have been more appropriate Section to be indicated in the orders passed by the Authorities below rather than Section 69C- Unexplained Expenditure. Nonetheless, we are of :-10-: ITA. No:962/Chny/2022 the clear opinion that mentioning of wrong section

SARANGABANI KIRUBAGARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

69B providing for amounts of investments in Bullion, Jewellery or other valuable articles (including excess Stocks as well) would have been more appropriate Section to be indicated in the orders passed by the Authorities below rather than Section 69C-Unexplained Expenditure. Nonetheless, we are of the clear opinion that mentioning of wrong section would not upset

SARANGABANI KIRUBAGARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1236/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.30 Lacs & Assessment Of Short- Term Capital Gain (Stcg) For Rs.12.19 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments & Submitted That Impugned Addition Of Rs.30 Lacs U/S 69 Represent Advance Received Through

69B providing for amounts of investments in Bullion, Jewellery or other valuable articles (including excess Stocks as well) would have been more appropriate Section to be indicated in the orders passed by the Authorities below rather than Section 69C-Unexplained Expenditure. Nonetheless, we are of the clear opinion that mentioning of wrong section would not upset

SARANGABANI KIRUBAKARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1237/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 31- 03-2022. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.8.04 Lacs & Rs.5 Lacs. The Assessee Is Also Aggrieved By Computation Of Long-Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of Rs.157.45 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments On Merits As Well As On Legal Grounds & Also Raised Additional Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Cit-Dr

69B providing for amounts of investments in Bullion, Jewellery or other valuable articles (including excess Stocks as well) would have been more appropriate Section to be indicated in the orders passed by the Authorities below rather than Section 69C-Unexplained Expenditure. Nonetheless, we are of the clear opinion that mentioning of wrong section would not upset

SARANGABANI KIRUBAKARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1235/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami,(Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30-03-2022. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.6.50 Lacs. 2. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments & Submitted That Impugned Addition Represents Receipt Of Loan From A Friend Through Banking Channels Which Could Not Be Added U/S 69. This Addition Does Not Satisfy

69B providing for amounts of investments in Bullion, Jewellery or other valuable articles (including excess Stocks as well) would have been more appropriate Section to be indicated in the orders passed by the Authorities below rather than Section 69C-Unexplained Expenditure. Nonetheless, we are of the clear opinion that mentioning of wrong section would not upset

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. N SUMATHI KUMAR, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross-

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Smt. N. Sumathi Kumar, Huf, The Dcit, 56, High Road, Chengalpattu, Central Circle-3(3), Kancheepuram-603 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaahn 0177 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.330/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

69B providing for amounts of investments in Bullion, Jewellery or other valuable articles (including excess Stocks as well) would have been more appropriate Section to be indicated in the orders passed by the Authorities below rather than section 69C- Unexplained Expenditure. Nonetheless, we are of the clear opinion that mentioning of wrong section would not upset

N SUMATHI KUMAR HUF,CHENGALPATTU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross-

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Smt. N. Sumathi Kumar, Huf, The Dcit, 56, High Road, Chengalpattu, Central Circle-3(3), Kancheepuram-603 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaahn 0177 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.330/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

69B providing for amounts of investments in Bullion, Jewellery or other valuable articles (including excess Stocks as well) would have been more appropriate Section to be indicated in the orders passed by the Authorities below rather than section 69C- Unexplained Expenditure. Nonetheless, we are of the clear opinion that mentioning of wrong section would not upset

SHANMUGAM DHANALAKSHMI,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1533/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

69B of the Act and has not made any enquiry in respect of gift of Rs. 3,21,450/- from her father and her own savings of Rs.12,00,000/-. The A.O has also not computed the tax on admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 64,00,000/- as per Section 115BBE of the Act. The Ld. PCIT therefore, held

SHRI SURESH OGADRAM ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.826/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Ogadram, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.1/33-D, Vs. Income Tax, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central Circle-3(3), Keelambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 603 103. [Pan: Alkps-2984-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

69B of the Act, as unexplained investment. A similar view has been taken by the co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT Chennai Benches in the case of M/s Mookambika in ITA No. 299 / Chny / 2023 dated 26-07- 2023 and relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under: 3. From the fact it emerges that the only source of assessee

ANAND PALANISAMI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

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

Section 40A(3) Unexplained expenditure made to 2012-13 39,00,000 Maruthamalai Rajakopuram Outside the books of account Unaccounted investments on 2011-12, 28,06,36,634 account of hand loans given to 2012-13 & various parties outside the books of 2013-14 accounts in Finance business. Total undisclosed income 49,75,68,603 It seems during