SITARAM THRIKKUR SUBBARAMAN,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sitaram Thrikkur Subbaraman .......... Appellant Xxxi 289 Lakshmi Nivas, Pushpagiri Thrissur - 680002 [Pan: Aiops8626E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Jai Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

cash deposits and also failed to prove that the property sold was jointly held along with family members. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset we find that there is a delay of 127 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed a petition along with

SHRI. MUTTAMTHOTTIL PAULOSE JOY,ANGAMALY vs. THE ITO WARD 2, ALUVA, ALUVA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2008-09

condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The ld AR submitted that various notices said to have been issued were not noticed by the assessee or the authorized representative. In any view of the matter, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in observing that they were similar deposits

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoning the delay of 96 days in filing both these appeals before this Tribunal and accordinglywe admit the same for adjudication. 4. Thebrief fact of the case are that the Assesseebeing an employees' co-operative society formed for the welfare of employees of Kerala Police department of Thrissur District and is registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.The Assessee

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY P.O vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under the provisions of the Act and run various educational institutions. During the assessment year 2012- 2013, the assessment was made without any additions to the income returned by the assessee. On going through the documents

INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST,NELLIKUZHY, KOTHAMANGALAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), ERNAKULAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust registered under the provisions of the Act and run various educational institutions. During the assessment year 2012- 2013, the assessment was made without any additions to the income returned by the assessee. On going through the documents

BAIJU LEKSHMANAN,KOLLAM vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2017-18 Baiju Lekshmanan Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, V. Alappuzha Marackasseril, Atiramthengu, Alumpeedika Po, Prayar South, Kollam – 690547. Pan : Ambpl8921A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akhil Shaji, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Registry Has Informed That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 17 Days. An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay For 17 Days Has Been Filed By The Assessee Explaining Reasons For Such Delay. We, After Considering The Application For Condoning The Delay, Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2 Baiju Lekshmanan 3. Brief Facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for re-assessment u/s 147 of the Act based on information that the assessee had made cash deposits

ULLATTIL SILLU,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3 ITA No.131/Coch/2025. Ullattil Sillu. 6. I heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The only issue that arises for my consideration is whether there was justification to sustain the addition of Rs.2,42,000 being the cash deposit

KIZHAKKEKARA SIVARAMAN NAIR UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kizhakkekara Sivaraman Niar .......... Appellant Unnikrishnan Nair Kizhakkekara House, Palakuzha Post Koothatuukulam, Ernakulam 686662 [Pan: Alepk0704G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Thodupuzha

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 7. The learned A.R. submits that the cash deposits

PHILIPPOSE VARGHESE,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO,WARD 3, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 46/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Philippose Varghese .......... Appellant Puthenchiramel, Cheppad, Alappuzha 690513 [Pan: Akcpv4524A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025

deposits. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A),who dismissed the appeal for non-compliance by holding that a person of 83 years old could not have held so much of cash balance. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, there is a delay

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

cash deposits, the CIT(A) had remitted the issue to the file of the AO for due verification. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Kattoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset we find that there is a delay

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

cash deposits, the CIT(A) had remitted the issue to the file of the AO for due verification. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Kattoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 7. At the outset we find that there is a delay

SHRI. SANTHAKUMAR DAMODARAN NADAR,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WARD -1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

cash deposits in computing income. 4 | P a g e Santhakumar Damodaran Nadar v. ITO 5. We may at this stage pause and come back to our consideration of the condonation of delay

BHASKARAKAIMAL KUREECKAL BHAVANAM GIRISH,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, WARD 1, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

cash deposits were made out of sale proceeds of the stamps. However, the CIT(A) without condoning the delay of 345 days

SNDP YOGAM VAIKOM UNION,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

cash deposits. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 131 days. The CIT(A) on due consideration of the application for condonation

SNDP YOGAM VAIKOM UNION,KOTTAYAM vs. ITO WARD-1, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

cash deposits. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 131 days. The CIT(A) on due consideration of the application for condonation

MUHAMMED RAMSI MALIKA KUNHITHAN,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Muhammed Ramsi Malika Kunhihan .......... Appellant Baithul Ummer, Fransics Road, Kallai, Kozhikode 673003 [Pan: Bmqpk8647E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(2), Kozhikode

cash deposited during demonetisation period. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, I find that there is delay of 148 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed an affidavit seeking condonation

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

cash deposits, the CIT(A) had\nremitted the issue to the file of the AO for due verification. Thus, the\nappeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.\n6.\nBeing aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this\nTribunal in the present appeal.\n7.\nAt the outset we find that there is a delay of 155 days in filing\nthe