Shri. Kudlur Ramaswamy Sathyanarayana, Mysuru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mysuru
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed
ITA 28/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2023AY 2015-16
Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kudlur Ramaswamy Sathyanarayana, The Assistant No. 1036-20, 4Th Main, Commissioner Of Vidyanarayanapuram, Income Tax, Mysuru. Mysuru. Vs. Pan: Ajops2226B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.11.2022 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015- 16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Bengaluru In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/12385/2018-19 Dated:17.11.2022 In Din: Itba/Apl/M/250/2022-23/1047480793 Dismissing The The Appeal & Confirming The Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated. 30.11.2016 Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysuru (Ao For Short) Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidences, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.
For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 44A
…by the appellant are also on same footing, being rendered on different facts and thus not applicable. 4.7 As regards decision in relation to FERA provisions, as relied upon by the appellant, it is important to note that in the case of Chuharnial v. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC), the Apex court held that the Evidence Act does not apply to proceedings under the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court pointed out that the rigours of rule of evidence contained in the Evidence Act were not applicable to the Income-tax Act, but on first principles and on general law, the principles of Evidence Act can be applied to proceedings…
