← All Phrases

“Section 143(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(3)45,044 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(3) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(3)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Judgments citing Section 143(3)

Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Additional CIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1217/MUM/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P Daniel, DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) was ordered and got conducted. The assessee was then assessed under section 143(3) of the Act on 5thNovember 2003, wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.8,48,33,150/-. 05. As the accounts of the assessee were ... verification of facts. Therefore, we admit the same. 018. The learned Authorized Representative specifically argued that in the present case, assessment passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 5thNovember 2003 and notice under section 271E of the Act was issued on 15thDecember 2003 and penalty is imposed

Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2056/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)

SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 25/01/2016, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), for the assessment year 2011–12. 2. In this appeal, the assessee ... respect of international transaction pertaining to ‘payment of technical consultancy fees’. The AO passed the draft assessment order under section 143 (3) r/w section 144C(1) of the Act and, inter-alia, incorporated the adjustment proposed by the TPO. 6. The assessee filed detailed objections before the learned Dispute Resolution

Devendra K Cheda, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6012/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri

Ss Oral Hygiene Products Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 645/HYD/2011[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06
Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(g)Section 92C

ITA No.645/Mum/2011 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Page 1 of 7 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘J’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod

M/S. Ss Oral Hygiene Products Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Idcit, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 105/HYD/2011[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07
Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(g)Section 92C

assessee appellant has challenged the correctness of the order dated 25.10.2010, passed by the Assessing Officer in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. When this appeal came up for the hearing learned Departmental

Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-5, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 342/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.342/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Ocwen Financial Solutions The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax V. Pritech Park, Survey No.51 To Special Range – 5 64/4, Block No.12, Unit 2, 5B & Bangalore. 6A Floors, Bellandur Village, Sarjapur Marathahalli Ring Road Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaaco3764E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ankur Pai & Sri. K.R.Vasudevan, Advocates Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Providing It Enabled Services To Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. Usvi. The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Ocwen Asia Holdings Limited, Mauritius. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 29.11.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.93,31,44,800. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai & Sri. K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Astrazenca Pharma India Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT

Income Tax Officer, TDS-1, Mumabi vs. M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 715/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Tds-1, M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Gr. Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Ground Floor, Dewan Tower, Gokhale Road, Teen Hat Naka, Vs. Navghar, Vasai Road (W), Thane-400 602. Thane-401202. Pan No. Aaacb 8570 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Abdul Memon, Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Abdul Memon, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Income Tax Officer, TDS-1 Thane, Thane vs. M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 714/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Tds-1, M/S Blue Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Gr. Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Ground Floor, Dewan Tower, Gokhale Road, Teen Hat Naka, Vs. Navghar, Vasai Road (W), Thane-400 602. Thane-401202. Pan No. Aaacb 8570 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Abdul Memon, Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Abdul Memon, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH

Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 325/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountnat Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sunil MotilalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 115A(1)(a)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 194LSection 234ASection 234B

SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 31/12/2021, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), for the assessment year 2018–19. 2. In this appeal, the assessee ... hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant') respectfully craves to prefer an appeal against the assessment order dated 31 December 2021 issued under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C (13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation

Sunita Chaudhry, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimalchand PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

notice under section 143(2) of the Act along with questionnaire for furnishing the details. The AO vide order dated 27/12/2017 passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act after, inter-alia, referring to information gathered and collected from the investigation wing pertaining to survey action conducted

Dhana-Shree Developers, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT -27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1036/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

learned AR further submitted that after consideration of the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed order dated 18/12/2018, under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act accepting the returned income. Accordingly, the assessment order is not erroneous and impugned revision proceedings were initiated to take

Anchor Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT - Ccc- 7(2)`, Mumbai

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

ITA 4940/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyanchor Electricals Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax, Central 3Rd Floor, I-Think Techno Circle-7(2) Campus, Pokhran Road Room No.655, 6Th Floor, No.2, Thane (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 400607 Road, Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaeca2190C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: M.P. Lohia &For Respondent: Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

ITA No.4940/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 1 Anchor Electricals Pvt. Ltd. VS. JCIT, CC-7(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M Pallonji Enerprises P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1907/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(2)(3), M/S M Pallonji Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., R. No. 527, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 3357 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 68

year under consideration on 29/09/2009 declaring total income at declaring total income at ₹ Nil. The scrutiny assessment under The scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income ) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short in short ‘the Act’) was completed on 26/09/2011, wherein total income was assessed ... copy of the assessment order also referred to copy of the assessment order also referred to copy of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated 26/09/2011, which is available assed under section 143(3) dated 26/09/2011, which is available assed under section 143(3) dated 26/09/2011, which

Infiniti Wholesale Ltd ( Formerly Knwon As Woolwonths Wholesale (India) P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is partly allowed

ITA 7718/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Michael Jerald
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal is directed against assessment order dated, 30.10.2012 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘], as per directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-II, (hereinafter referred

Savanoor Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa

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

ITA 737/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Abhijit, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Bose Saravanan, Pudukkottai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, Pudukkottai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 598/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B/SMC’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद) के सम*। BEFORE SHRI

M.Bharathi, Villupuram vs. ITO-Villuppuram, Villupuram

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 385/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह

Varadaraj Sumathi, Arcot vs. ITO, Ward 2, Vellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 367/CHNY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 367/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Smt. Varadaraj Sumathi, The Income Tax Officer, 35/12A, Vellore Main Road, 1St Street, Vs. Ward 2, Vellore. Arcot 632 503. [Pan:Bbzps1853C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-8, Chennai, Dated 12.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

assessment year 2010-11 on 21.08.2017 declaring total of ₹.2,77,756/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 26.10.2017 determining total income of the assessee at ₹.7,07,970/- by disallowing cash deposit ... PCIT during the course of revision proceedings. Therefore, the ld. PCIT has rightly held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 26.10.2017 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, the ld. PCIT has rightly set aside