LATE BYRRAJU SOMARAJU REP BY LR BYRRAJU PRATAP RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD
ITA No 1020 of 2024 Late Byrraju Somaraju
Page 1 of 8
आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President
A N D
Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member
आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1020/Hyd/2024
(िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2011-12)
Late Shri Byrraju
Somaraju Rep by LR
Byrraju Pratap Raju
Hyderabad
PAN:ECXPB6437D
Vs.
Income Tax Officer
Ward 11 (1)
Hyderabad
(Appellant)
(Respondent)
िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by:
Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocarte
राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by::
Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing:
18/07/2025
घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/07/2025
आदेश/ORDER
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09/08/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law;
The learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the appellate order was already passed by another CIT (A) and that the matter was pending before the High Court;
ITA No 1020 of 2024 Late Byrraju Somaraju
Page 2 of 8
3 The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that no such order was passed by any other CIT (A) against the appeal preferred by the appellant and the appeal ought to have been decided on merits by the CIT(A);
The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the following grounds.
a) The initiation of proceedings u/s 148 by issue of notice on 26.03.2018 to Sri Bairaju Somaraju is invalid as Sri
Bairaju Somaraju passed away on 31.10.2009; b) The learned CIT (A) ought to have held that the notices u/s 142(1) were issued to Sri Bairaju Somaraju during
April, 2018 and thereafter which are not valid as they were issued to a dead person; c) The Assessing Officer is not justified in passing an order on Sri Bairaju Somaraju, holding Sri Bairaju
Prattap Raju and Sri Bairaju Rama Raju as legal heirs without issuing any further notice to the legal heirs d) The learned CIT (A) ought to have held that no capital gain arose to Sri Bairaju Somaraju under the facts and circumstances of the case; e) The learned CIT (A) ought to have found that no transfer took place during the year under consideration as the Transfer Deed i.e. the Sale Deed was originally executed on 13.10.2008 and was presented to the Sub