SATYANARAYANA MURTHY ADAPA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1263/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 March 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer who lacked territorial jurisdiction. The subsequent assessment order was passed by an officer who did not issue the mandatory notice under Section 143(2). This fundamental jurisdictional defect renders the assessment order invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an employee of Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, filed his return for AY 2017-18 showing a total income of Rs. 11,28,510. His case was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits during demonetisation. The AO found cash deposits of Rs. 5,00,000 and Rs. 23,21,222 in two bank accounts, which were treated as unexplained income under Section 69A.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order is liable to be quashed due to a fundamental jurisdictional defect arising from the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) by a non-jurisdictional officer and the absence of such a notice from the ultimately assessing officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 127,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 292BB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

For Appellant: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr. AR

PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 16/06/2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18. Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa vs. ITO

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1) The order of the learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC is arb

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →