SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA
Facts
The assessee did not file Income Tax Returns for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2018-19. For AY 2015-16, the Assessing Officer noted cash deposits and initiated reassessment proceedings, making additions for unexplained money. For AY 2018-19, cash deposits, withdrawals, and share sales were identified, leading to reassessment and additions for unexplained expenditure, followed by penalty proceedings. In both cases, the assessee did not comply with notices, and the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders dismissing the appeals.
Held
For AY 2015-16 (ITA No. 336/Viz/2025), the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by notice under Section 148 dated 18.04.2022 were without jurisdiction, as the time limit for issuing such notice had expired on 31.03.2022 under the unamended Section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act, relying on various Supreme Court precedents. For AY 2018-19 (ITA Nos. 337 & 338/Viz/2025, quantum and penalty appeals), the Tribunal remitted the matters back to the Ld. CIT(A) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing on merits, acknowledging that ex-parte orders were passed due to non-appearance.
Key Issues
Whether reassessment proceedings initiated after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 were valid and within the time limits prescribed by Section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act; and whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee for AY 2018-19 quantum and penalty appeals.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 148A, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149, 149(1)(b), 142(1), 144, 144B, 250, 250(6), 69A, 69C, 115BBE, 270A, 271AAC, 271AAC1, 271AAC(1), 274, 3(1) of TOLA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.336, 337 & 338/Viz/2028 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19) Shaik Saida, VS. Income Tax Officer, D.No. 5/82, Nuzvid, Ward-3(1), Kothapet Mulsim Bazar, Viajayawada. Opp. SRR High School Street, Nuzvid, Krishna Dist-521201, Andhra Pradesh. PAN: FGVPS1509A (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)
करदधतध कध प्रनत निनर्त्व/ : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CA Assessee Represented by रधजस्व कध प्रनतनिनर्त्व/ : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR Department Represented by सुिवधई समधप्त होिे की नतनि/ : 28/08/2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 24/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, AM:
The captioned three appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”) and the details are as under:
2 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO Sl DIN & Order No. Order date AY Arising out of No the order 1. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/20 22/11/2024 2015-16 U/s. 147 r.w.s 24-25/10720564129(1) 144, dated 30/01/2024 2. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/20 19/03/2025 2018-19 U/s. 147 r.w.s 24-25/1074702882(1) 144, dated 26/02/2024 3. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/20 25/03/2025 2018-19 U/s. 271AAC1, 24-25/1075003527(1) dated 18/08/2024
Since these three appeals pertain to the same assessee and the issues involved in these appeals are identical, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in following graphs. ITA No. 336/Viz/2025 (AY: 2015-16)
At the outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 116 days in filing the present three appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:
3 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO
4 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO
On a perusal of the above, we are of the considered view that there is a sufficient and reasonable cause ie., due to fracture of right side ankle of the assessee and the consequent medical treatment, the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal for the AYs 2015-16 within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. As per the information available with the Department, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 45,72,200/- and Rs. 32,02,000/- in the State Bank of India during the year under consideration. However, the assessee has not filed his return of income for the Asst. Year 2015-16. Therefore, case of the assessee was reopened and the order U/s. 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 18/04/2022 and notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 18/04/2022. Later on the Ld. AO also issued notices U/s. 142(1) of the Act. Since, there was no compliance from the assessee, the Ld. AO issued show cause notices dated 12/09/2023 and 21/09/2023. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices / show cause notices nor
5 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO submitted any supporting documents / evidence in respect of the cash deposits. Therefore, the Ld. AO, considering the fact that the assessee has failed to comply with the notices issued and in the absence of any documentary evidence in support of the cash deposits made by the assessee, proceeded to complete the assessment U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act by treating the cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 77,74,200/- as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee U/s. 69A of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 77,74,200/- and passed the assessment order dated 30/01/2024. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
Before the Ld. CIT(A) there was no response from the assessee to the hearing notices issued and none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any written submissions in support of the grounds raised before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and passed ex-parte order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:
6 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO
Further, the assessee has also raised additional Grounds of Appeal which read as under:
7 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO “1. The show cause notice issued U/s. 148A(b) dated 21/03/2022 and served on the assessee on the same day, ie., 21/03/2022, is invalid in law, as it fails to provide the mandatory minimum of 7 clear days for compliance. As per settled legal principles, both the date of service and the date of compliance (terminal days) must be excluded while computing the period. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to such defective notice are bad in law and liable to be quashed as being void ab initio. 2. The notice issued U/s. 148 of the Act, dated 18/04/2022 is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act read with the proviso thereto. Since the notice was issued beyond the prescribed time limit of six years, the subsequent assessment order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 30/01/2024 is bad in law, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed.” 7. Since the additional legal grounds raised by the assessee challenge the validity of the assessment order, the Ld. AR pleaded that it goes to the root of the matter and prayed for adjudication of the same before deciding the case on merits.
We admit the legal grounds raised by the assessee as the same goes to the root of the matter.
At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that notice under section 148 of the Act for the A.Y.2015-16 was issued on 18.04.2022 without following the procedure prescribed by the new provision inserted on 01.04.2021. Ld.AR also submitted that notice under section 148 of the Act dated 18.04.2022 is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) of the Act w.e.f 01.04.2021. Ld.AR pleaded that the legal ground raised by the assessee as above, shall first be addressed before adjudicating the other grounds raised on merits. On this issue, Ld.AR
8 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO placed heavy reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Vaka Ghanta Nageswara Rao v. ITO in ITA No. 251/VIZ/2025 dated 10.07.2025.
Ld.AR by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal [(2002) 444 ITR 0001 (SC)] submitted that the new procedure prescribed under section 148(A) under Finance Act, 2021 was not followed by the Ld. AO prior to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Ld.AR also submitted that after passing the order u/s. 148(A)(d) of the Act, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 18.04.2022 for the A.Y. 2015-16 wherein the limitation expires on 31.03.2022 as per section 149(1)(b) of the un-amended provisions. Ld.AR further submitted that as held in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal [(2024) 8 NYPCTR 1291 (SC)], that the relaxation under Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 (“TOLA”) are not applicable for the A.Y. 2015-16 and are applicable in the case for the time limit for issuing notices expired between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021. Further, the Ld.AR also submitted that the time limit for the notice issued under the unamended provisions u/s. 149 of the Act expired on 31.03.2022 i.e., 6 years from the end of relevant assessment year for the escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to more than one lakh rupees or more for that year. Ld.AR therefore
9 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO pleaded that notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 18.04.2022 is invalid and consequently assessment order passed in accordance with the invalid reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Act is void-ab-initio.
Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”] submitted that the mere procedural mistake cannot invalidate the assessment proceedings. She therefore prayed for upholding the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and the written submissions made by the Ld. AR. It is an undisputed fact that the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 18.04.2022. The grievance of the Ld.AR is since the notice has been issued after the commencement of new regime wherein the Finance Act, 2021 amended the provisions of section 147 to 151 of the Act, the Ld. AO ought to have followed the procedure prescribed as per the new regime. Ld.AR placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed vide its order dated 04.05.2022 to treat the notice issued under section 148 of the Act as per the amended provisions of the I.T.
10 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO Act, r.w. section 3(1) of TOLA as deemed to be a show-cause notice under the provisions of section 148A of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that section 3(1) of the TOLA overrides section 149 of the Act only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of the re-assessment notice under section 148 of the Act. TOLA will continue to apply to the Act after 01.04.2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Act falls for completion between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021. In the instant case, the time limit as per the provisions of unamended Act for the A.Y.2015-16 as the income is considered as escaping assessment of more than Rs.1,00,000/-the term expires on 31.03.2022.
Further, we also observe that in the case of Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao v. ITO in ITA No. 251/Viz/2025 the Co-ordinate Bench of Visakhapatnam held as follows: -
“9. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record including the case laws cited by the Ld.AR. It is not in dispute that the date of the order u/s 148A(d) is 07.04.2022 and that of the consequential section 148 notice is also dated post 31.03.2022. In the instant case the notice under section 148 was issued on 07.04.2022 for the A.Y. 2015-16. It is the contention of the assessee that the said notice is barred by limitation as per the first proviso of the unamended proviso to section 149(1)(b) of the Act which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (supra) held as follows: -
11 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO “19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: (a) to (e)** (f). The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA; ** 46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the "time limits specified under the provisions of" 149(1)(b) of the old regime.” 10. The first proviso of section 149(1)(b) prescribed under section 149(1)(a) of the old regime continues to exist for the A.Y. 2021-2022 and before. Consequently, notice under section 148 of the Act as per amended provisions cannot be issued for the period beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of notice. In the instant case, the time limit of six years expires on 31.03.2022 and the notice u/s 148 issued on 07.04.2022 is not valid notice for the re assessment proceedings. From the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, it is clear that for the purpose of checking of the validity of the notices issued under section 148 of the Act under the new regime for the A.Y. 2021-2022 or prior years is whether the period of six years has expired at the time of issuance of such notice as per the unamended section to determine the validity of the notice under section 148 of the Act under the amended section. In the assessee’s case, the period of six years expires on 31.03.2022 and therefore notice dated 07.04.2022 under section 148 of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16 is invalid and barred by limitation. In view of the above findings and in light of binding judicial precedents, we hold that the reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2015-16 are without jurisdiction, and hence the notice issued under section 148 and subsequent proceedings are
12 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO quashed. Accordingly, the assessment completed under section 147 of the Act is liable to quashed. Thus the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.”
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC) held as follows: -
“4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court inUnion of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:- “19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015- 2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.” 5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. 6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at cuttack stands allowed.”
Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., v. Central Board of Direct Taxes (supra) and consistently following the view taken in ITA No. 251/VIZ/2025, we are of the view that re-assessment proceedings
13 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO initiated for the A.Y. 2015-16 in the instant case are without jurisdiction and hence the assessment completed u/s. 147 of the Act consequent to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 18.04.2022 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. Since the legal grounds are adjudicated in favour of the assessee by quashing the re- assessment order the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits are not adjudicated.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
ITA No. 338/Viz/2025 (AY: 2018-19) 17 This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), dated 19/03/2025 arising out of the order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 26/02/2024.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed his return of income for the AY 2018-19. As per the information available with the Department, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee sold has sold equity shares of Rs. 8,718/-, made cash deposits of Rs. 26,36,900/- and made cash withdrawals of Rs. 1,28,71,980/- during the Asst. Year under consideration. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened U/s. 147 of the Act and notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 18/04/2022. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued
14 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO statutory notices however, the assessee remained non-compliant during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Ld. AO completed the assessment U/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 26/02/2024 by making addition of Rs. 1,02,35,080/- [Rs. 1,28,71,980 – Rs. 26,36,900 cash deposit) towards unexplained expenses U/s. 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and Rs. 8,718/- towards sale of equity shares. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,02,43,798/- and passed the assessment order. The Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the orders passed U/s. 148 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 26/02/2024, as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide orders passed U/s.250 of the Act dated 19/03/2025, are contrary to the facts of the case and the provisions of law, and therefore, deserve to be set aside. 2. That the impugned appellate order has been passed in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, 1961 as the Ld. CIT(A) failed to dispose of the appeal on merits and did not address the specific contentions. Hence, the order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 3. That the Ld.CIT(A) failed to grant reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the impugned order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s
15 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act wherein the issue related to the cash withdrawal of Rs. 1,02,35,080/-, which can never partake the character of income, without properly appreciating or considering the material available on record. 5. The Ld. NFAC ought to have taken into cognizance that the proceedings conducted by the local JAO by issuance of notices U/s. 148A(d) and 148 of the Act, were not in accordance with the provisions of the law. 6. The proceedings initiated by the local JAO, instead of through automated allocation under faceless assessment, are in violation of the faceless assessment guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on 29/03/2022. 7. The Ld. NFAC failed to consider that the jurisdictional High Court of Telangana was supported contention raised on Ground No.5 above in a writ petition dated 14/09/2023, stating that proceedings carried out by local officers are void. Therefore, the appellant assets that the proceedings conducted in this case should be deemed void-ab-initio due to non-compliance with faceless assessment guidelines. 8. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the orders passed U/s. 250 of the Act be set-aside and the additions made by the AO be deleted.” 20. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld CIT (A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that several opportunities had been provided to the assessee however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee has appeared before the Ld. CIT (A) nor responded to the hearing notices issued. It was further submitted
16 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO that the Ld. CIT (A) had no other option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, we find that the Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case on seven occasions. However, there was no response / representation on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on the dates of hearing nor the assessee filed any details/ submissions with regard to the source of alleged cash deposits before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte. In this situation, the Ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the prayer of the Ld. AR and in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeal afresh and decide the case on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record with a direction to the assessee to cooperate in the remand proceedings before the Ld. CIT (A) failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate
17 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO orders based on the material available on record. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
ITA No. 337/Viz/2025 (AY: 2018-19)
This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), dated 25/03/2025 arising out of the order passed U/s. 271AAC1 of the Act.
In this appeal, the Ld. AO completed the assessment U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 26/02/2024 determining the total income at Rs. 1,02,43,798/- which includes addition of Rs. 1,02,35,080/- towards unexplained expenditure U/s. 69C of the Act and Rs. 8,718/- towards business income. Further, the Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act and issued notice U/s. 274 r.w.s 271AAC(1) of the Act, dated 29/02/2024 and the same was served on the assessee. However, there was no response / compliance from the assessee to the penalty notices issued. Therefore, the Ld. AO levied penalty of Rs. 7,99,016/-. Against the said penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
18 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO
On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) passed ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the 06 grounds of appeal which revolve around the levy of penalty by the Ld. AO and decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the same.
It is pertinent to mention here that against the quantum additions made by the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who passed the ex-parte order and therefore, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 338/Viz/2025d (AY: 2018-19) which is adjudicated in the foregoing paragraphs of this order. While adjudicating the quantum appeal, we have remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh. Since the quantum appeal in ITA No. 338/Viz/2025 is remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), the instant appeal ITA No. 337/Viz/2025, being the penalty appeal, is also being remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the case in tune with the quantum appeal. Accordingly, all grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
19 ITA No. 336, 337 and 338/Viz/2025 Shaik Saida vs. ITO 28. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
Ex-consequenti, ITA No. 336/Viz/2025 is allowed. ITA No. 337 & 338/Viz/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24th September, 2025. S Sd/- Sd/- (एस बालाकृष्णन) (रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) (S BALAKRISHNAN) न्यायिकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER d/- Sd Visakhapatnam, dated . 09.2025. OKK/sps आदेशकीप्रनतनलनपअग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Shaik Saida, D.No. 5/82, Nuzvid, Kothapet Mulsim Bazar, Opp. SRR High School Street, Nuzvid, Krishna Dist-521201, Andhra Pradesh. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), CR Building, 1st Floor Annex, MG Road, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520002. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकरअपीलीयअनर्करण /DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file 6. आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam.
