KUMAR CHERKA REP. BY CHERKA BHARGAV,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual, did not file a return for AY 2020-21. The AO reopened the assessment under Section 147 and added salary income of Rs. 89,12,572/-. The assessee passed away before the return filing due date, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b).
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) was not applicable as the assessee claimed the income was exempt retirement benefits, thus no advance tax was payable. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal under Section 249(4)(b) and whether the addition made by the AO on account of retirement benefits requires fresh verification.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 159,Section 249(4)(b),Section 10(10),Section 10(10AA),Section 10(10A),Section 10(12),Section 10(12A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:
The present appeal has been filed by Shri Kumar Cherka (Rep. by Shri Cherka Bhargav) (“the assessee”), against order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) 12.11.2025 for the A.Y.2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
2 “1. The impugned reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B dated 24.12.2024 is wholly without juri iction, ilegal and void ab initio, having been passed in the nam
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 147
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 640/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 639/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 638/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Kishorbhai C Bhagtani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1), RajkotITA 999/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Malhar Nitin Bhuptani, Rajkotq vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1054/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Pabitra Kumar Prusty vs. The Chief Commissioner , CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 7 Oct 2026
- M/S Innojet Projects Private Limited, Khorda vs. The Joint Commissioner Of State Tax (Appeal) Central Tax And Goods And Services Tax, BhubaneswarOrissa · 7 Oct 2026
- M/S.Ganjam Galaxy Bhapur Barkatulla Street, Ganjam vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 7 Oct 2026
- Lalu Kumar Bagh vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Koraput Range, KoraputOrissa · 7 Oct 2026
- M/S Bhanu Metal Industries And Ors vs. Union Of INDIA And OrsCalcutta · 7 Oct 2026