“income from other sources”

Income HeadsSection 56Section 568,248 judgments

The decision most relied on for income from other sources is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on income from other sources

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT

187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court

1,372

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO

322 ITR 283 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,283

citing judgments

The interest income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in fixed deposits with banks is not "derived from" its eligible business activities and is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, thus not qualifying for deduction under Section 80P.

K.P. Varghese v. ITO

131 ITR 597 · 1981 · Supreme Court

989

citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

327 ITR 456 · 2010 · Supreme Court

663

citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source from payments made to a non-resident under Section 195 only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer bears the onus to establish that the payments made are indeed chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.

342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court

658

citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT

227 ITR 172 · 1997 · Supreme Court

621

citing judgments

Interest income earned on deposits, particularly before the commencement of business operations or as a requirement for business licensing, is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, and cannot be treated as business income or set off against interest on borrowed funds.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT

50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court

581

citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Liberty India v. CIT

317 ITR 218 · 2009 · Supreme Court

571

citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarified that for profits and gains to be eligible for deductions under sections like 10B, 80IA, or 80IB, the income must be "derived from" or have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity. Income from incidental sources like the sale of scrips/licenses or interest on employee loans is generally not considered as derived from the eligible business for such deductions.

Judgments citing income from other sources

Sumit Goel, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 68Section 69C

INCOME TAX vs. SMT. PUSHPAMALPANIHIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN : JAIPUR BENCH (2011) 242 CTR 0559 : (2011) 49 DTR 0312 Capital gains—Vis-a-vis income from other sources—Genuineness of sale of shares—Question whether there was sale of shares and receipt of appreciated value is essentially a question of fact ... decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur and Jodhpur: - (i) INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. SMT. KUSUMLATA( ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH) (2006) 105 TTJ 0265 Income from undisclosed sources—Addition under s. 69—Unexplained investment in house property—Assessee is said to have made investment in the construction of residential house

Shekhar Gajanan Govekar (Representative of Late Gajanan Mahabaleshwar Govekar), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2758/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshekhar Gajanan Vs. Ito, Ward 42(2)(2), Govekar (Representative Kautilya Bhawan, Of Late Gajanan Bkc, Bandra, Mahabaleshwar Govekar) Mumbai-400051. 308, C-Wing, Viman Darshan Society, Jiva Mahale Marg, Opp Bahar Cinema, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400069. Pan/Gir No. : Aaapg4252C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Sumit Mantri.ARFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe.Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

during the F.Y 2010-11This amount has not been offered for taxation Hence the same is treated as income under the head income from other sources for the A.Y 2011-12. 3. Finally the assessing officer has made addition of Long Term Capital Gains

Himanshu Goyal, Dhamtari vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur

In the result legal grounds raised by the assessee under present appeal is allowed

ITA 144/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.144/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-2013) Himanshu Goyal, Vs Pr.Cit, Raipur-1, Raipur Nawagaon Road, Dhamtari, 793773, (C.G.) Pan No. :Agtpg1746Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Praveen KhandelwalFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 263

individual and during the year under consideration the assessee has shown income from salary, house property, business /profession and is also having income from other sources. Accordingly, the AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.6,88,010/-. 5. Subsequently, the ld. Pr.CIT, invoking his powers u/s.263

Jajoo Hygiene P Ltd, Indore vs. The ACIT/DCIT 2(1), Indore

ITA 161/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jajoo Hygiene Pvt. Acit/Dcit, Ltd., 2(1), 304-A, Indore. बनाम/ Subhlabh Residency, Khajrana Chouraha, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aadcj 0657 Q Assessee By Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca & Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023

Section 143(3)Section 288BSection 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(viib)

prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section(1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”, Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx (viib): where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year

Pappu Yadav, Tikamgarh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Tikamgarh, Tikamgarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pappu Yadav, Village Ito Ward Tikamgarh, Pahadi, District Tikamgarh Madhya Pradesh-472001. Vs. Madhya Pradesh- 472001. Pan No. Aiwpy 8755 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)

APPEAL) is not justified in making • The Assessing officer and CIT (APPEAL) is not justified in making assessment: under the head income from other sources Considering at assessment: under the head income from other sources Considering at assessment: under the head income from other sources Considering

Varsha Shrikant Paranjape, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax - 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3252/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhvarsha Shrikant Vs. Acit, Circle 25(3) Paranjape, Paranjape C-10, 6Th Floor, Room No. Bungalow, 2Nd Floor, 34, 601, Pratyaksha Kar Mg Road, Vile Parle Bhavan, Bandra Kurla (East), Mumbai – 400057 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaapp6199H Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Ronak Doshi, Chaitanya Doshi & Karan Jain Respondent By : Vithal Machindra Bhosale Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2023

For Appellant: Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Vithal Machindra Bhosale

Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 45(4)

GROUND NO. 5: THE ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN SALES CONSIDERATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,11,09,161/- CANNOT BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES: 5.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred in bringing to tax, the alleged ... difference in sales consideration amounting to Rs.5,11,09,161 under the head Income from Other Sources and thereby levying tax at the rate of 30% on the same, without giving any basis thereof in the assessment order. 5.2 The Id AO failed to appreciate and ought to have held

Amarjeet Singh Bhatia, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 23, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2837/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 263

interest in respect of above mentioned sale of property which should have been declared as interest income under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. Also, you should have declared sales consideration at Rs.69,50,000/- as per the duly registered sale deed of the said property. In view ... received as interest in respect of above mentioned sale of property. should not be assessed as interest income under the head 'Income from Other Sources' and taxed accordingly. 3. Further, from the records, it is seen that you have claimed to have incurred in financial year 1994-95, the year

Braham Prakash, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5819/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Us

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

viii), which was introduced by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f 01/04/2010 wherein interest received on enhanced compensation was sought to be treated as income from other sources. The AO, however, very fairly applied the provisions of section 57 (iv) also by granting adhoc deduction to the extent ... added 50% of interest received on enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.70,44,235/- (1,40,88,470/- x 50%) as income from other sources and completed the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the provisions of the Act ; considering the Page 3 of 5 Braham Prakash vs. ITO provisions

Vinay Parmanand Hariani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It), Ward-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 985/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vinay Parmanand Hariani, Ito, Int. Taxation Ward 2(2)(1), Kempinski Private Residences Room No. 1725, 17Th Floor, Air Vs. Unit 40F Dki Jakarta, 10310 India Building, Nariman Point, Indonesia. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabph 4179 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush ChaturvediFor Respondent: Mr. Anil Sant, Sr. DR

Section 115GSection 69A

response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, t notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee has shown he assessee has shown income from other sources at Rs.4,72,445/ other sources at Rs.4,72,445/- which included interest income from which included interest income from DBS Saving ... credited on 01.04.2014 but not included by the statement as credited on 01.04.2014 but not included by the assessee under the head ‘income from other sources’. The assessee under the head ‘income from other sources’. The assessee under the head ‘income from other sources’. The contention of the assessee contention

Dy.Comm of Income Tax-17(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Maharashtra State Security Corporation, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1837/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

income is not chargeable to tax under the head "profits and gains of business or profession" it will be assessed under the head "income from other sources. " On a perusal of the above paragraph, it is clear, that the employers deduction towards employees various funds will be taxed

Dy.Comm of Income Tax-17(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Maharashtra State Security Corporation, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1836/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

ACIT Cent. Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sumatichand Gouti Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2375/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2Section 68

cited supra. We therefore respectfully following the same hold that the AO has not jurisdictional to assess the long term capital gain as income from other sources as the same is not based upon the seized or incriminating materials found during the search proceedings qua the long term capital gain

Phool Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 513/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54

time. The assessee in his return of income declared total income at Rs. 77,370/- which is mainly from salary, capital gain and income from other sources. Against the sale of property at Rs. 17,00,000/- the assessee has claimed indexed cost at Rs. 16,95,170/- and offered

Geeta Mandar Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 35(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2702/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegeeta Mandar Joshi, Vs. Ito, Ward -35(1)(4) 122B, Purshottam Kautilya Bhawan, Towers Chsl, Gokhale G-Block, Bkc, Road (South), Mumbai-400051. Prabhadevi, Dadar, Mumbai-400028. Pan/Gir No. : Ahqpj8798M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Anil Sethe.ARFor Respondent: Shri. G.J. Ninawe, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary and income from other sources. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 on 30.08.2015 disclosing a total income of Rs.4

Poonam Dhavalkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT/ACIT/JCIT/ITO -NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2220/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar SutharFor Respondent: MS Smitha V. Nair

Section 250Section 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

Consequently, the Assessee was show caused to explain as to why the differential amount should not be taxed u/s 56(2)(x) as income from other sources. The Assessee in response claimed that she has purchased under construction flat on 6th December, 2014 in the joint name ... being the difference between the purchase value and stamp duty value, as per the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act, as income from other sources by concluding as under:- “3.7 Thus, form the examination of the allotment letter and agreement to sale, it is evident that the allotment

The B S N L Emp Ccs Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 167/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.165-167/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21) The B.S.N.L.Emp. C.C.S.Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer No.Z 613, Chilakaluripet Ward-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaeat2982P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Orders Dated 29.03.2023 & 30.03.2023 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Since The Grounds Raised In These Appeals Are Common, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & A Common Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience As Under. Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.165/Viz/2023. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Society, The B.S.N.L.Emp C.C.S Ltd Registered With Cooperative Society No.Z.613, Chilakaluripet

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P

Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that interest earned from retaining the amount payable to its members shall not be considered as income from other sources. However, in the instant case, the facts are 5 I.T.A. No.165-167/Viz/2023,A.Y.2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The BSNL Emp C.C.S Ltd., Chilakaluripet distinguishable ... Apex Court has held that interest earned from retaining the amount payable to its members shall not be considered as income from other sources. 6 I.T.A. No.165-167/Viz/2023,A.Y.2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The BSNL Emp C.C.S Ltd., Chilakaluripet However, in the instant case the facts are distinguishable and hence

The B S N L Emp Ccs Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 166/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P

The B S N L Emp Ccs Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80P

Rangaraya Large Sized Cooperative Society, Pasivedala vs. Income Tax Officer, Tanuku

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.160/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Rangaraya Large Sized Cooperative Vs. Income Tax Officer Society Tanuku No Wg 445 Pasivedala Kovvur Mandalam Pasivedala [Pan : Aacat2077R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Drsn Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1051742265(1) Dated 31.03.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 28.12.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Agricultural Cooperative Society Registered Under The Society Act, Provides Credit

For Appellant: Shri DRSN Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80P

members or marketing agriculture produce to member”. Interest on such deposits is not business income and hence the same is treated as income from other sources. Hence, the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) and passed an order dated 28.12.2019 and arrived at taxable income at Rs.3 ... Apex Court has held that interest earned from retaining the amount payable to its members shall not be considered as income from other sources. However, in the instant case the facts are distinguishable and hence in our view the ratio laid down in the case of M/s. Totgars Cooperative Sale

Sudheer Chamarthi, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 216/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.216/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Sudheer Chamarthi Vs. Income Tax Officer 12-17-36/1, Somuvari Street Ward-1(1) Kothapet Guntur Guntur [Pan : Axnpc8454A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021- 22/1041354665(1) Dated 23.03.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2017-18 With The Delay Of 163 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit, Submitting That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Was Uploaded In E-Filing Portal & It Was Not Served Physically. The Assessee Submitted That All His Income Tax Matters Were Entrusted To A Chartered Accountant, Who Did

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deriving income from other sources, had filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 through e-filing on 07.08.2017, declaring total income at Rs.3,01,990/-. The return ... perused the material available on record. The assessee is an individual, doing private computer works and his main source of income is income from other sources. It is undisputed fact that the assessee is assessed to income since the A.Y.2015-16. The assessee’s mother and father are also assessed