M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (11 of 1964).’ (emphasis, ours) Whether the said provision, inapplicable in the instant case inasmuch as the notices of demand stand issued much prior to 01/10/2014, would save the same is to be seen. The Hon’ble Court was, however, unanimous in that a set aside

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,KOCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (11 of 1964).’ (emphasis, ours) Whether the said provision, inapplicable in the instant case inasmuch as the notices of demand stand issued much prior to 01/10/2014, would save the same is to be seen. The Hon’ble Court was, however, unanimous in that a set aside

M/S SANTHIMADOM AYURNIKETHAN HEALTH RESORT & RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (11 of 1964).’ (emphasis, ours) Whether the said provision, inapplicable in the instant case inasmuch as the notices of demand stand issued much prior to 01/10/2014, would save the same is to be seen. The Hon’ble Court was, however, unanimous in that a set aside

MARIAMMA JOSEPH,KOTTAYAMN vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is decided on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmariamma Joseph Asst. Cit, Central Circle Hotel Floral Park Kottayam 686001 Gandhinagar Vs. Kottayam 686008 [Pan:Accpj9135F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

10,84,900 on 13/10/2010, admitting tax liability of Rs. 2,28,114, stood processed, or deemed to be so, in October, 2010, or latest by March, 2012. Interest u/s. 234B(3), which is to be for the period following the date of processing up to the date of reassessment or, as Mariamma Joseph v. Asst. CIT, Central Circle

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

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

reassess such income for such assessment year. Further, section 147 makes it very clear that in order to invoke provisions of section 147, there should be income which has escaped assessment, and such escapement should be based on fresh tangible material which comes to the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the completion of the original assessment and further

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

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

reassess such income for such assessment year. Further, section 147 makes it very clear that in order to invoke provisions of section 147, there should be income which has escaped assessment, and such escapement should be based on fresh tangible material which comes to the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the completion of the original assessment and further

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

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

reassess such income for such assessment year. Further, section 147 makes it very clear that in order to invoke provisions of section 147, there should be income which has escaped assessment, and such escapement should be based on fresh tangible material which comes to the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the completion of the original assessment and further

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

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

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

reassess such income for such assessment year. Further, section 147 makes it very clear that in order to invoke provisions of section 147, there should be income which has escaped assessment, and such escapement should be based on fresh tangible material which comes to the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the completion of the original assessment and further

BHARATH RASIKLAL SHAH,COCHIN vs. PCIT KOCHI-1, KOCHI

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

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

10-06-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Ld.PCIT, Kochi – I dated 18/03/2024 passed u/s. 263 of the Act and raised the following grounds: Page 2 of 12 “A. The act of the Respondent (PCIT) without adhering to the plain meaning of Section

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition of land / properties by family members Total Addition 34,01,94,057 2,75,19,40,663 3,09,21,34,720 3.18 Finally, the assessments were

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition of land / properties by family members Total Addition 34,01,94,057 2,75,19,40,663 3,09,21,34,720 3.18 Finally, the assessments were

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition of land / properties by family members Total Addition 34,01,94,057 2,75,19,40,663 3,09,21,34,720 3.18 Finally, the assessments were

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition of land / properties by family members Total Addition 34,01,94,057 2,75,19,40,663 3,09,21,34,720 3.18 Finally, the assessments were

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition of land / properties by family members Total Addition 34,01,94,057 2,75,19,40,663 3,09,21,34,720 3.18 Finally, the assessments were

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition of land / properties by family members Total Addition 34,01,94,057 2,75,19,40,663 3,09,21,34,720 3.18 Finally, the assessments were

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition of land / properties by family members Total Addition 34,01,94,057 2,75,19,40,663 3,09,21,34,720 3.18 Finally, the assessments were

SRI.PARAYARUKANDY VETTATH GANGADHARAN,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), CALICUT

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasparayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) Kerala Transport Company (Decd., Calicut Vs. Represented By Lrs.) K.T.C. Building, Ymca Calicut 673001 [Pan: Adhpg8318B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment may be made shall apply to a re-assessment made under section 27 or to an assessment or re-assessment made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 31, section 33, section 33-A, section 33-B, section 66 or section

FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOCHI vs. ACIT CORP. CIRCLE-1(1 ) , KOCHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment J year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001." The Hon’ble Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section