NIMMANA NARASIMHARAO,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ELURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction by dispensing with the statutory obligation to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The assessment order was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating cash deposits of Rs. 65,50,000 as unexplained money. The assessee had filed a belated return of income in response to a notice under Section 142(1).
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment framed under Section 144 is valid without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) when a belated return was filed in response to a Section 142(1) notice. Whether Section 292BB of the Act can cure the complete absence of a notice under Section 143(2).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 144,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 292BB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(9)Show listHide 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.
- Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT631 citing384 ITR 490 · 2016 · HC
- ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon623 citing321 ITR 362 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal225 citing417 ITR 325 · 2019 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd.92 citing228 Taxmann 48 · 2014 · HC
- Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. ITO61 citing25 Taxmann.com 341 · 2013 · HC
- Pr. CIT v. Dart Infrabuild (P) Ltd.18 citing166 Taxmann.com 4 · 2024 · HC · Read judgment
- Pr. CIT v. S.G Portfolio (P) Ltd.11 citing454 ITR 761 · 2023 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd.10 citing156 Taxmann.com 191 · 2023 · HC
- Amec Foster Wheeler Iberia SLU-India Project Office v. DCIT9 citing148 Taxmann.com 124 · 2023 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench
आदेशकी �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. िनधा�रती/ : Shri Nimmana Narasimharao, D.No.17-3-13, Near Sivalayam, Lakshmivarapu Peta, Eluru The Assessee 2. राज�/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Eluru 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, / DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam. 5. गाड�फ़ाईल / Guard file
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026