INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-, KOTTAYAM vs. PUTHENKUDY PAULOSE BABU, KOTTAYAM

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive ground seeking to revive sec.69 addition of Rs.68 lakhs made in the course of assessment herein dated 31.12.2019; learned DR invited our attention to the learned CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate discussion to this effect reading as under ; “7. During

SHEEJAMOL SAINABABEEVI ALIYARUKUNJU,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed as infrutuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained investment in the residential building. Hence this appeal” 3. The assessee also filed a condonation application to condone the delay

VAZHAPPALLY SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD K 108,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

condoning the said delay of 600 days. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that even though all the details of the members who had deposited the cash with the assessee were furnished before the AO, the AO had treated the said deposits as unexplained investment

KUNJUMOL,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

unexplained investment and also made an addition of Rs. 63,15,000/- on account of undisclosed capital gains on sale of immovable property. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was file before the CIT(A) with a delay of 122 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning

MOHAMMED ALI ABDULLA,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mohammed Ali Abdulla .......... Appellant Erivottkuni House, Payyoili Angadi, Thurayur, Kozhikode-673523. Pan: Cdfpm5769J Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-2(2), Kozhikode. Appellant By: Shri C B M Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.

unexplained investment vide order dated 30/03/2022 passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) with a delay of 111 days. The appellant had explained the reason before the CIT(A) stating that the delay in filing the appeal

RAFEEK,KERALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S. & Sa.No.58/Coch/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.861/Coch/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rafeek Vs Ito, Ward-3 Kochukaleeckal A.N.Puram Krishnapuram Alappuzha Kappilmekku Kerala-688 011 Alappuzha-690 533 Pan – Akjpr2342F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Suresh Varma, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 .03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2021. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. The Assessee Also Filed A Stay Application Seeking To Stay The Recovery Of Outstanding Tax Arrears.

condon the delay of ‘81’ days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- 1. The grounds u/s. 250 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1035496469(1)] dated 13.09.2021 for AY 2017-18 is opposed to law, facts

SANKAR ALAMELU,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO , NFAC, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay of 3 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. The solitary issue raised in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.14,99,356 u/s.69 of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: It is the claim

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

condonation of delay, admit the instant appeals. Hearing was accordingly proceeded with. ITA Nos.920-921/Coch/2022 (AYs. 2008-09 & 2009-10) Santhimadom Herbal City Trust v. Asst. CIT 3. The assessee is a private trust formed on 01.01.2007 (02/11/2004, as per the impugned order) with the object of construction of a herbal city, apartments/villas, etc. for the promotion of herbal treatment, herbal

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained investment and as such he ought not to have invoked section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 6. For the above and other reasons to be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the learned ITAT may be Page 3 ITA Nos. 302 & 303/Coch/2020 pleased to cancel the order under section 263 passed by the Principal

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained investment and as such he ought not to have invoked section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 6. For the above and other reasons to be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the learned ITAT may be Page 3 ITA Nos. 302 & 303/Coch/2020 pleased to cancel the order under section 263 passed by the Principal

NOORANAD SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD 2, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nooranad Service Co-Op. Society Ltd. .......... Appellant Padanilam P.O., Nooranad, Alappuzha 690529 [Pan: Aaban2292F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.01.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That That Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Not Filed By The Appellant Society. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs. 12,28,000/- In The District Co-Operative Bank

unexplained investment of the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee by stating that the appellant failed to fulfill the necessary conditions for admission of appeal before the CIT(A) as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant

DIVINE KANJIRAMADATHIL IGNATIOUS,KOCHI vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay of 33 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- 1. The learned CIT(Appeals) is erred in adopting the wrongly reported property value of Rs.1,36,26,000/- as against the actual figure of Rs.13,25,500/- and treating the same as unexplained

VASU POKKATHARAKALAM DINESAN,CHANDIROOR, ALAPPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

unexplained investment of Rs.2,56,363. Thus, the AO made the total addition of Rs.37,95,820. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dated 06.12.2023, confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal

BINUKALA SIVARAJENDRAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Binukala Sivarajendran .......... Appellant Arun Gardens, Vellamkettuvila, Nemom P.O. Thiruvananthapuram [Pan: Djdps8683E] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 Was Filed By The Appellant. Based On The Information That The Appellant Purchased Bonds/Debentures Valued At Rs. 20,00,000/- During Previous Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Therefore, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued

unexplained investment of the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay

KURUVEETIL MANIKANDAN RAJAN,THRISSUR vs. ITO, THRISSUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

unexplained investment amounting to Rs.31.51 lakh. The very factual position appears to have continued before the CIT(A) as well. It is in this backdrop that the learned counsel submits that the assessee is a retired defense personal and also an NRI, he could not receive the lower authorities notices of hearing and therefore, it resulted in his non-appearance

KARAKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

investments with any other Co- operative Society. The source of interest income is from Bank and Treasury, interest income received from Treasury be included in the computation of total income of the assessee. In other words, interest earned from Treasury is inadmissible for deduction and interest income from Co-operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies

KARAKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

investments with any other Co- operative Society. The source of interest income is from Bank and Treasury, interest income received from Treasury be included in the computation of total income of the assessee. In other words, interest earned from Treasury is inadmissible for deduction and interest income from Co-operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies