← All Phrases

“Section 142(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 142Section 142(1)15,051 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 142(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 142(1)

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.

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. 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.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

Judgments citing Section 142(1)

Mobil Trust Series 06, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - (1)(1), Thane

Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed and all the other Grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 7559/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Raghunathan &For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 115TSection 142(1)Section 272A(1)(d)

Assessee under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act since the Assessee had failed to apply with Notice, dated 17/08/2023, issued under Section 142(1) of the Act during the assessment proceedings. The appeal preferred by the Assessee challenging the aforesaid penalty was dismissed by the Learned CIT(A) holding ... that the Assessee was negligent in complying with the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessee has preferred present appeal 2 Assessment Year 2022-2023 challenging the Order, dated 11/03/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) . 5. During the course

Jayesh Kanungo HUF, Khetwadi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(1), Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6855/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Bijayananda Prusethjayesh Kanungo Huf Ito -19(2)(1), Mumbai 203, Rajgiri Apartment, A Wing, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 13Thkhetwadi Back Road, Mumbai Parel Mumbai 400012 400004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabhj8492E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar Singh a/w. Ms. Asifa KhanFor Respondent: Shri. Nakul Agrawal Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

been changed after the returns were filed. However, the records also reveals that the assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under Section 142 (1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act precludes the assessee from ... days of receipt of notice under Section 142(1). In the present case, the facts did not warrant the order made by the High Court. At the same time, this Court notices that the High Court had granted liberty to the concerned authority to issue appropriate notice. It is clarified

Deepak Mahadeo Bhoir, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3597/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardeepak Mahadeo Bhoir, Income Tax Officer, C/O Bharat Kumar, 317, Ward 42(1)(2), Prasad Chamber, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 004 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Ajupb 7841H Appellant By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ca Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2. Before We Proceed To Decide The Substantive Issue Arising For Consideration, It Is Necessary To Provide A Brief Factual Background. This Appeal Was Earlier Disposed Of By The Coordinate Bench Vide Order Dated 12.12.2024. Subsequently, Assessee Filed A Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification/Recall Of The Appellate Order On The Ground That While Deciding The Appeal, The Bench Had Failed To Decide Ground No. 2.A & 2.B. While Deciding The Miscellaneous Application, The Bench Having Found Merit In The Submissions Of Assessee, Recalled The Order For The Limited Purpose Of Deciding Ground No. 2.A & 2.B Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal. This Is How The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149

Order passed under section 148A(d) 9. 27-07-2022 Notice issued under section 148 10. 09-10-2025 Notice under section 142(1) 11. 13-10-2025 & Reply filed by the Petitioner 14-10-2025 12. 14-10-2025 Notice under section 142(1) 13. 17-10-2025 Reply ... accordingly set aside the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act as well as all the subsequent notices issued under Section 142(1) and the show cause notice on the above ground. The other contentions raised by the Petitioner are kept open. 16. If the timeline of reassessment

Rinki Singh, Jamshedpur Telco vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Jamshedpur, Jamshedpur

ITA 56/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Rinki Singh, I.T.O., Flat No. 5703, Prakirti Shanti Valley Ward 2(1), Vs. Society, Hurlung, Telco, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-831004 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Issps 0698 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 249Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

authorities. 7. We have considered the submissions of the appellant as given in response to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 15/11/2022 and has been discussed on page No. 2 and 3 of the assessment order, which reads as under

Kaushal Jain, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/RAN/2025[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Kaushal Jain, I.T.O., Radheshyam Garage Lane, Old Ward 1(5), Vs. Commissioner Compound, Ranchi. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Afgpj 0706 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

Income Tax Officer, Ramgarh vs. Babita Prasad, Bokaro Steel City

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 279/RAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.O., Babita Prasad, Ward 2(3), Qtr No. 1/167 Sector 2B, Bokaro Steel Vs. Ramgarh. City, Bokaro-827001, (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aodpp 6894 E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

Gopal Anil Kumar, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 862/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 37Section 44ASection 68

ITANo.862/Bang/2025 Gopal Anil Kumar, Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI,VICE PRESIDENT

Veeresh Wali, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2413/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

directions issued under section 263 of the Act, the AO initiated fresh proceedings. During the course of such proceedings, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee calling upon him to explain the nature and source of the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period ... reason for withdrawal of cash from the bank and subsequent redeposit of the same. 6. In response to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee furnished the bank statements and cash book for the relevant AY. The assessee also produced a written statement

Mamatha Mahesh Shetty, Chikkamagaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

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

ITA 2382/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 250

assessee has not declared impugned receipt in her return of income. Hence, a query was raised in this regard through notice under section 142(1) of the Act. 10.3 In response, the assessee submitted that land admeasuring 1 acer was purchased in her name in the year 2005 as well

Navakarnataka Pss Limited, Hospet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Hospet

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

ITA 2167/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 2(19)Section 234ASection 250Section 40Section 40aSection 80P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bengaluru vs. Uma Rugmini, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2100/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sathvik, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271FSection 54

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Thimmaiah Venkatesh, Hesaraghatta Main Road, Chikkabanavara, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

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

ITA 1965/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Shree Raksha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Cisco Commerce India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Bengaluru-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194JSection 263Section 40

show figures at Rs Nil. Thus for the earlier years there were no such provisions outstanding. 30. During assessment proceedings, a notice under section 142(1) was issued on 20 December 2022 requesting details about incentives and rebates for channel partners totaling ₹159.83 crores. The actual rebate incentive

Jaikishin Omprakash Pahuja, Ghatkopar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Kalyan, Mumbai

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

ITA 8893/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

Mumbai notices under section 143(2) dated 23.06.2023 and 28.07.2023 were issued but no response was received from the assessee. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) dated 14.08.2023 was issued requiring the assessee to furnish information and supporting documents. Since there was no compliance, a non-responsive letter dated ... assessee sought adjournment on 25.08.2023 requesting time to arrange the relevant details. The Assessing Officer granted further opportunity and issued another notice under section 142(1) dated 12.10.2023, followed by a further notice under section 142(1) dated 09.11.2023. However, the assessee did not furnish the requisite details or documentary

Mehul Pravinchandra Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT, C.C 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4702/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Dharmbati, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Inspector Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5672/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Dharmbati, Vs. Income Tax Inspector, H. No. 523, Chandawali, Faridabad Ballabhgarh, Faridabad Pan: Azipb6400G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.03.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077406804(1), Dated 23.06.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Assessing Officer ("AO") served notice under section 143(2) upon the assessee on 22.09.2019 followed by issue of notice und er section 142(1) of the Act on 23.11.2020. The Ld. AO completed the assessment on 22.01.2021 under section 143(3) r.w. section ... case of the assessee. 6.1 Elaborating the above contentions, the Ld. AR pointed out that in notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 23.11.2020 (copy at Paper Book page 1-2), the Ld. AO required the assessee to furnish documentary evidence in support of claim that the amount

Adimulam Satyanarayana Proprietor, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 472/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 13Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

demonetization period, i.e., 09/08/2011 to 30/12/2016, but had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration, issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 13/02/2018, wherein the assessee was called upon to file his return of income within time period therein prescribed. However, the assessee ... said bank account. 6. As the assessee had failed to file his return of income in compliance to notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 13/02/2018, therefore, the AO taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee was a non-filer for the subject year, issued manually through

Srinivasa Rao Sirivuri Proprietor, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 459/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

income in compliance to the aforesaid notice issued under section 148 of the Act, dated 03.04.2022 nor complied with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, therefore, the A.O was constrained to issue notice under section 144 of the Act dated 02.02.2024, wherein the assessee was called

Progressive Constructions Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 625/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.625/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Progressive Constructions The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1) Vs. Pin – 500 001. Telangana. Hyderabad - 500 004. Pan Aabcp2274M Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : & Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: And Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 36(1)(vii)

खत खाते या द"तावेज या जानकार" मांगी गई है: 1. The following accounts or documents or information is/are sought under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: Please provide complete information with respect to the following queries and also submit all relevant documentary evidences to support

ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni, Medak

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

ITA 1821/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1821/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni, (International Taxation)-1, Medak. Hyderabad. Pan: Aztpd7575K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Hyd/2026 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1821/Hyd/2025) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni, (International Taxation)-1, Medak. Hyderabad. Pan: Aztpd7575K (Appellant In Appeal) (Respondent/Cross Objector) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Sudarshan, Ca Shri Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Sv Siva Prasad, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/03/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, Dated 19.08.2025, Co No.01/Hyd/2026 Ito (It)-1, Hyd Vs. Srinivas Rao Dontineni

For Appellant: Shri Sudarshan, CAFor Respondent: Shri SV Siva Prasad, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

demonetisation period) in his bank account, but had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration, issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. However, as the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the AO, therefore, the latter was constrained to frame