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

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

unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 345 days. It was stated that the appellant was engaged in the business of stamp vendor and deriving commission from the State Government of Kerala, and in support of this contention, the appellant

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

unexplained money of the appellant for alleged failure of the appellant to substantiate the source of 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

unexplained money of the appellant for alleged failure of the appellant to substantiate the source of 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

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned lower authorities made addition on cash deposits in the bank account treating as unexplained money

NAIPPALLI CHIRAYIL CHANDY JOSEPH,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO WARD 2 , ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Naippalli Chirayil Chandy Joseph .......... Appellant Naippallichirayil House, Edathua, Alappuzha [Pan: Anspj6746P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K. Balaji, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 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 18.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Filed By The Appellant. Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Cash Deposits In Bank Account During The Previous Year Relevant To Ay 2015-16, Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 07.04.2022 After Complying With The Procedures

unexplained money of the appellant. The AO also made addition of interest income of Rs. 21,355/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 114 days. The CIT(A) had refused to condone

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

unexplained money being cash deposits in Specified Bank Notes (SBN) during demonetisation period, rejecting the contention of the appellant that the cash deposits were made out of cash withdrawals from post office saving bank of Rs. 9,15,000/- and cash withdrawals from banks during the period January 2016 to October 2016 of Rs. 21.32 lakhs and also cash hoarded

NORBET DEILIP ELAVUNKALPETER,KOCHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Norbet Deilip Elavunkalpeter .......... Appellant Elavungal House, Mahakvi Vailoppilli Road, Palarivattom, Ernakulam 682025 [Pan: Aagpe8491B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward-2(1), Kochi

delay is condoned and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 7. When the appeal was called on, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, I proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 3 Norbet Deilip Elavunkalpeter 8. The short issue that arises for my consideration

SACRED HEART PUBLIC SCHOOL KOTTAYAM,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeal and the stay application filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

unexplained money. Accordingly, deleted the addition. However, confirmed denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act on the ground that no return of income was filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) was of the opinion that the appellant had filed return of income in response to notice u/s. 142(1) issued on 21.12.2017. However, the return

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

unexplained money u/s. 69. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO stating that the appellant failed to explain the source of cash deposited during demonetisation period. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. At the outset

PUTHIYARAMBATH BALAKRISHNAN,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), 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 Puthiyarambath Balakrishnan .......... Appellant "Achutham", Pilakkatt, Parambra Kottooli, Kozhikode 673016 [Pan: Aggpb2229J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(1), Kozhikode

unexplained money of the assessee for alleged failure of the appellant to prove the source of cash deposits made in the bank accounts. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present

KAMALUDHEEN FATHIMA,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, GURUVAYOOR

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

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

unexplained money of the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 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 266 days in filing the present

KAMALUDHEEN FATHIMA,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 & TPS, GURUVAYOOR

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

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

unexplained money of the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 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 266 days in filing the present

PAVANA MANUEL XAVIER,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

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

unexplained money\nof the appellant for the failure of the assessee to respond to several\nnotices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act calling upon the appellant to\nsubstantiate the claim for agricultural income.\n3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who\nvide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non\nprosecution.\n4. Being aggrieved

ROBY ROOPESH POONATTIL,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), 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 Roby Roopesh Poonattil .......... Appellant Poonathil House, North Beypore, Kozhikode 673015 [Pan: Akhpr5461P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 1(3), Kozhikode

unexplained money of the appellant rejecting the availability of opening cash balance of Rs. 2,65,000/-, sale of gold, etc. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non-prosecution without entering into the merits of the issues. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal

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

unexplained money of the assessee rejecting the contention of the appellant that the said cash deposits were made out of business receipts of the partnership firm, M/s. Sitaram Auto Sales and Service in which the appellant was a partner, as the firm’s bank account was frozen by the bank for non repayment of loans. As regards the capital gains

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

unexplained money of the appellant. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 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 of 121 days in filing the present

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

unexplained money of the appellant. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 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 of 121 days in filing the present