SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

investing in his new petrol business venture in Kerala. That is, even going by the wholly unsubstantiated story, the sum is not part of his business, itself unevidenced, but sourced from others (for his new, to be established, business venture). That is, admittedly the source is not either his labor or an income yielding (or otherwise) asset

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained investment u/s 69 without appreciating the fact that the appellant is engaged in growing and sale of herbal plants and that the income derived is agricultural income which shall not include total by virtue of section 10(1). He ought to have appreciated that this claim was made in the return filed on 31/12/2010; this position was found

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained investment u/s 69 without appreciating the fact that the appellant is engaged in growing and sale of herbal plants and that the income derived is agricultural income which shall not include total by virtue of section 10(1). He ought to have appreciated that this claim was made in the return filed on 31/12/2010; this position was found

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained investment u/s 69 without appreciating the fact that the appellant is engaged in growing and sale of herbal plants and that the income derived is agricultural income which shall not include total by virtue of section 10(1). He ought to have appreciated that this claim was made in the return filed on 31/12/2010; this position was found

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained investment u/s 69 without appreciating the fact that the appellant is engaged in growing and sale of herbal plants and that the income derived is agricultural income which shall not include total by virtue of section 10(1). He ought to have appreciated that this claim was made in the return filed on 31/12/2010; this position was found

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

unexplained investment; its routing through accounts, where so, notwithstanding, which cannot be allowed to be a ruse (see para 4.6). As explained in CIT v. S. Kamaraj Pandian [1981] 150 ITR 703 (Mad), the burden on the assessee to establish the identity of the creditor; the capacity of the creditor to advance the loan; and the genuineness of the transactions

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

unexplained investment; its routing through accounts, where so, notwithstanding, which cannot be allowed to be a ruse (see para 4.6). As explained in CIT v. S. Kamaraj Pandian [1981] 150 ITR 703 (Mad), the burden on the assessee to establish the identity of the creditor; the capacity of the creditor to advance the loan; and the genuineness of the transactions

THEKKINIAN PAULOSE VARKEY,THRISSUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thekkinian Poulose Varkey .......... Appellant Thekkinian (H), Koratty South P.O., Thrissur 68030 [Pan: Aedpv4959E] Vs. Acit, Circle - 2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.09.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Executing Construction Contracts Under The Name & Style Of T.P. Constructions. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 01.11.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 77,93,730/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 2(1), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called

investment for the failure of the 4 Thekkinian Poulose Varkey assessee to discharge the onus of proving the source of capital introduced in the firm. However, during the course of proceedings before the CIT(A) the appellant had filed an explanation stating that the capital was introduced out of addition made in the assessment

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

investments made by the partners in the property over a period of 4 years ranging from the assessment year 2009-10 to the assessment year 2014-15. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30/03/2017 and proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. During the reassessment proceedings, it was observed

UKKANDATH DILEEPAN,PALLAPURAM vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CALICUT

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment proceedings initiated in 3 ITA Nos.99-101/Coch/2024 Sri.Ukkandath Dileepan. his case. The appellant has challenged the issue of notice u/s 148 by the ITO, Ward-4, Tirur as lacking jurisdiction since the appellant was a non-resident. However, as discussed by the AO in the impugned order, the PAN jurisdiction of the appellant based on his local address was with

SRI UKKANDATH DILEEPAN,UROOB NAGAR, PALAPRAM vs. ACIT(OSD)INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, KOZHIKODE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment proceedings initiated in 3 ITA Nos.99-101/Coch/2024 Sri.Ukkandath Dileepan. his case. The appellant has challenged the issue of notice u/s 148 by the ITO, Ward-4, Tirur as lacking jurisdiction since the appellant was a non-resident. However, as discussed by the AO in the impugned order, the PAN jurisdiction of the appellant based on his local address was with

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.

unexplained investment made in cash towards purchase of immoveable properties was also seized. Thus, this is a case where sufficient incriminating material has been found by investigation team which indicates undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein

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.

unexplained investment made in cash towards purchase of immoveable properties was also seized. Thus, this is a case where sufficient incriminating material has been found by investigation team which indicates undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein

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.

unexplained investment made in cash towards purchase of immoveable properties was also seized. Thus, this is a case where sufficient incriminating material has been found by investigation team which indicates undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein

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.

unexplained investment made in cash towards purchase of immoveable properties was also seized. Thus, this is a case where sufficient incriminating material has been found by investigation team which indicates undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein

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.

unexplained investment made in cash towards purchase of immoveable properties was also seized. Thus, this is a case where sufficient incriminating material has been found by investigation team which indicates undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein

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.

unexplained investment made in cash towards purchase of immoveable properties was also seized. Thus, this is a case where sufficient incriminating material has been found by investigation team which indicates undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein

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.

unexplained investment made in cash towards purchase of immoveable properties was also seized. Thus, this is a case where sufficient incriminating material has been found by investigation team which indicates undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein

NANU RAJEES,KANNUR vs. ITO - WARD 4, KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2005-06

reassessment by making the following additions:- (i) Interest on loans considered as used for personal purposes – Rs.34,746 (ii) Unexplained investments