MADAN MOHAN RAO PUVVADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1152/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 March 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G. (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because the Assessing Officer failed to examine the purchase of an immovable property that was reflected in the assessee's PAN account. The revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 158 days, citing non-receipt of a physical certified copy of the impugned order. The revenue objected, stating that a digitally signed order does not require a physical copy. The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to a cost.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the Assessing Officer's lack of inquiry into a property transaction reflected in the assessee's PAN. Whether the Principal Commissioner was justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 139,Section 194IA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(10)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 ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Hearing: 11.02.2026

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the revision Order dated 26.03.2024 of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad-4, Hyderabad for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2 ITA.No.1152/Hyd./2024

2.

There is a delay of 158 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that only soft copy of the impugned order was received by the assessee, however, the

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 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →