← 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)

Jitendra Kumar, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69

ITA Nos.54 to 62/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

Jitendra Kumar, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69

ITA Nos.54 to 62/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

Jitendra Kumar, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 58/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69

ITA Nos.54 to 62/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

Jitendra Kumar, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69

ITA Nos.54 to 62/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

Jitendra Kumar, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69

ITA Nos.54 to 62/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

Jitendra Kumar, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69

ITA Nos.54 to 62/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

Jitendra Kumar, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69

ITA Nos.54 to 62/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

Sukumar Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 5401/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwals.A.No.524/Del/2024 [In Ita No.5401/Del/2024] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sukumar Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., Vs National Faceless C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Appeals Centre South Delhi, (Nfac), Delhi Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaqcs8755B Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sukumar Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., Vs National Faceless C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Appeals Centre South Delhi, (Nfac), Delhi Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaqcs8755B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gagan Kumar, Adv. & Shri Gagan Deep, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

S.A.No.524/Del/2024 & IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sonea Dhir, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-32 (1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3073/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 50C

ITA No.3073/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Amit Goel, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2965/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2965/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Dcit, Amit Goel, Room No.221, 2Nd Floor, Vs. S-33, Panchsheel Park, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaapg7084L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No.85/Del/2024 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No.2965/Del/2024) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Amit Goel, Dcit, Room No.221, 2Nd Floor, S-33, Panchsheel Park, Vs. Hauz Khas, New Delhi. C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Pan No.Aaapg7084L New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 69C

ITA No.2965/Del/2024 & CO No.85/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

Radhey Shyam Saini, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Pcit, Sh. Radhey Shyam Saini, H. No. 1174/334, Rohtak Ramlila Chowk, Hisar, Haryana Pan: Bxhps4356Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, The “Pcit”], Rohtak’S Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062878555(1), Dated 18.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 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 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

races. The Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") served notice under section 143(2) upon the assessee on 22.09.2019 followed by issue of notice under 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

Shammi Nagpal HUF, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2358/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Pcit, Shammi Nagpal Huf, H. No. 7, Sector-13, Hissar, Rohtak Haryana Pan: Aazhs3505D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “The Pcit”), Rohtak’S Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062887031(1), Dated 19.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 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 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

races. The Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") served notice under section 143(2) upon the assessee on 22.09.2019 followed by issue of notice under 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

Aman Holdings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT - 1, Delhi

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

ITA 660/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 127(2)Section 127(2)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263

under the jurisdiction of CIT (Central)-II, New Delhi, as per a centralization 9 order dated 21st November 2008. A notice under Section 142(1) of the I.T. Act was issued to the assessee on 2nd February 2009, requiring the submission of a return by 20th February ... assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under section 142( 1). The relevant paragraph of the said judgement is as follows: 11 " ... However, the records also reveals that the assessee had participated pursuant

Virendra Gir Goswami, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 411/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.411/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Virendra Gir Goswami 85, Hathkhoj, Utai, Durg-491 107 (C.G) Pan: Aljpg4888N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

taxmann.com 434 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled that where the assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under Section 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, then Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act precludes the assessee from ... questioning the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under Section 142(1). 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of both the parties, considered the material available on record and facts and circumstances involved in the present case

Shri Bharat Patel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Bharat Patel Prop.- Disha Sales, C/O. V.S. Patel, Umiya Market, Bhanpuri, Raipur-492 009 (C.G.) Pan: Ajmpp6194M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

taxmann.com 434 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled that where the assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under Section 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, then Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax 5 Shri Bharat Patel ... assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under Section 142(1). 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of both the parties, considered the material available on record and facts and circumstances involved

Creator Events Private Limited, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Patna

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

ITA 76/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Creator Events Pvt. Limited,…….….………Appellant H. No. 123, Vijay Nagar, Rukunpura, Bailey Road, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Aafcc3700R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-2(1), Patna, Jay Prakash Bhawan, Income Tax Department, Patna-800001, Bihar

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

ITA No. 76/PAT/2025 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Creator Events Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT

Devanand Singh, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 4 (2), Patna

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

ITA 67/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 67/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Devanand Singh,……………..……..….………Appellant Baluan, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Adlps8382F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-4(2), Patna, Jay Prakash Bhawan, Income Tax Department, Patna-800001, Bihar

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

under section 148 was issued and served on the assessee through ITBA but no compliance was made by the assessee. Again, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued but the assessee did not comply with the notice. Thereafter a show- cause letter dated 16.08.2019 was issued

Lalo Kamat, Saharsa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 2/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH: PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING IN KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट"य एवं "ी "द

Mithilesh Kumar Aakela, Aurangabad vs. ITO, War-3(3), Aurangabad

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

ITA 195/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 195/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Mithilesh Kumar Aakela,…………...….………Appellant S/O Mahendra Singh Pouthu, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar [Pan:Atepa0896R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-3(3), Aurangabad, 2Nd Floor, R.J. Palace, Raikashinath More, Gaya-823001, Bihar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

deposited Rs.10,30,000/- as cash into his bank account. Since the assessee did not file his income tax return, a notice under section 142(1) was issued as per SOP in respect of data of cash deposit in Bank pushed by the Directorate of Systems under ‘Operation Clean Money ... where he declared total income at Rs.2,92,832/- and sales turnover at Rs.45,36,732/-. After that, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee along with questionnaire and was required to upload his reply on or before 4.2.2019 but the assessee

Anup Kumar HUF, Patna vs. ACIT, Cent. Cir-1, Patna

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

ITA 192/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 192/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Anup Kumar Huf,…………………...….………Appellant 4A, Narayan Nilayam Apartment, Road No. 6 Rajendra Nagar, Patna-800016 Bihar [Pan:Aahha5422R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax....Respondent Central Circle-1, Patna

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 246Section 251Section 5

Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 11.07.2018 requesting for compliance on 18.07.2018. Questionnaire along with notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued requesting for compliance on 25.07.2018. The assessee produced relevant documents but the appears that the assessee had earned an income