DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Since the appeals are belonging to same assessee and grounds raised by the assessees in both the appeals are common and identical, both these appeals are clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order being passed.

Firstly, we take up the appeal in ITA No. 43/VIZ/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) and brief facts are culled out therefrom.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1069762375(1) dated 18.10.2024 for the A.Y. 2015-16 arising out of order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 29.09.2021.

At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal records that there is a delay of 23 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: -

On perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee as well as the submission of the Ld. AR, we find that the assessee is prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 23 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits in the following paragraphs.

Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an Executive Chairman of M/s.Vijayanagar Biotech Group and filed his original return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.10.2015 admitting a total income of Rs.23,09,310/-. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s.Vijayanagar Biotech Group cases on 10.01.2020 at the Registered office situated at Visakhapatnam. Consequent to centralisation of the case, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 26.02.2021. In response, assessee

On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee also raised legal grounds regarding non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and assessment order was issued without any Document Identification Number (DIN) and therefore assessment is not valid in law. However, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the DIN was properly communicated by the Ld. AO to the assessee and rejected the arguments of the assessee. With regard to non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) observed that since the assessee did not file the return of income within the time stipulated in the notice issued under section 153A of the Act, he concluded that the Ld. AO has rightly treated that the assessee has not filed the return of income by placing reliance on Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi in the case of Rakesh Agarwal in ITA No. 2461/Del/2019,

On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: - 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) iscontrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not2. justified in holding that the assessment completed without issue of notice u/s 143(2) is not invalid. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is notjustified in holding thee the assessment order issued without DIN is not invalid. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified sustaining the addition of Rs.45,58,500 made by the assessing officer towards alleged on-money on sale of flat. 5. Any other ground may be urged at the time of hearing.”

Ground Nos. 1 & 5 are general in nature and needs no adjudication.

Ground No.2 &3 relates to the non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and issuance of assessment order without DIN respectively. Ld.AR submitted that, assessee has e-verified the return on 23.09.2021 and hence the valid return of income was available for Ld. AO when the assessment order was passed on 29.09.2021 which is wrongly mentioned as 29.09.2019 in the assessment order. He therefore pleaded that assessment order is void ab initio and prayed for quashing the same. Further he also submitted that

Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] relied on the order of the lower authorities.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. These legal grounds were also raised by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) admitting the legal grounds found no merit in the arguments of the Ld.AR and thereby dismissed the legal grounds raised by the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) in his order in Para No. 7.4 has observed that DIN was properly generated and communicated to the assessee by the Assessing Officer on 01.10.2021. Further, on the issue of non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi in Rakesh Agarwal (Supra) wherein under similar facts and circumstances it was held that since no valid return was filed by the assessee there is no requirement for issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. We are in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) on the legal issues and we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hence no interference is required on the legal issues vide Ground No.2 and 3 raised by the assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted and undisputed fact that the assessee has entered into the “agreement to sale” with the buyer agreeing the consideration at Rs.1,17,16,500/- and by receiving Rs.25,00,000/- as cash on the date of agreement. We also find that the sale of agreement was signed by both the parties for an accepted consideration of Rs.1,17,16,500/-. Further, it was also found that the assessee has received cash of Rs.25,00,000/- on the date of agreement to sale and has also agreed and accepted to receive balance of Rs.90,21,650/- within 90 days from the execution of sale agreement or at the time of registration of sale deed whichever is earlier. No documentary evidences were produced before us regarding the return of cash received by the

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070030818(1)dated 29.10.2024 for the A.Y. 2020-21 arising out of order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 29.09.2021.

At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 23 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition

On perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee as well as the submission of the Ld. AR, we find that the assessee is prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 23 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 23 days in the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs.

Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an Executive Chairman of M/s.Vijayanagar Biotech Group and filed his return of income for the A.Y.2020-21 on 22.03.2021 admitting a total income of Rs.31,88,150/-. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of

On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Assessee also raised additional ground regarding the issuance of assessment order without DIN along with the grounds on merits. Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the legal ground also upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer thereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: -

Ground Nos. 1 and 5 are general in nature and needs no adjudication.

Ground No. 2 is with respect to the sustaining of the addition of Rs.27,29,450/- and Ground Nos. 3 & 4 relates to the granting of telescoping benefit against the addition of Rs.45,58,000/- made in the A.Y. 2015-16. The Ld.AR submitted that since the addition of Rs.45,58,000/- was made in the A.Y.2015-16 towards on-money from the sale of property, the benefit of telescoping should be made available to the assessee during the A.Y. 2020-21 against the gold and silver jewellery amounting to Rs.27,29,450/-. He therefore pleaded that the addition made by the Ld. AO be deleted.

Per contra, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the value of jewellery and silver articles found

Further, on the issue of the telescoping of addition made during the A.Y.2015-16 for the addition made during the A.Y. 2020-21 could not be accepted in the absence of proving the nexus by the assessee. We therefore reject the Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the assessee on seeking the telescoping of the benefit of on-money seized during the A.Y.2015-16 to the cost of gold

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

To sum-up, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.