← 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)

Balwant Singh Dhindsa, Adv. So Kartar Singh, #185 Street No. 11, Punia Colony, Sangrur, Punjab vs. ITO Ward Sangrur, Punjab

In the result, appeal of the assessee is

ITA 800/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

filed his return of income in compliance to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. 2.3 That the notice(s) under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued on various date(s) and that the assessee neither attended the office nor gave any reply whatsoever. The details ... notice(s) issued under Section 142(1) of the Act are as under : Nature of notice issued Date on which notice issued Date for which case fixed Remarks under Section 142(1) 20.05.2019 30.05.2019 None attended under Section 142(1) 13.11.2019 20.11.2019 None attended under Section 142(1) alongwith Show

Shivam Prerna Infrabuild, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1431/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil

Swatantryavir Savarkar Nagari Sahakari Patanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2798/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2796 & 2798/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Swatantryavir Savarkar Nagari Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patanstha Maryadit, Income Tax Department. 1, Javer Bhuvan, Opposite Rathi Sadan, Subnash Road, Nashik Road, Nashik- 422101. Pan : Aaqcs3784G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 18.11.2024 U/S 271Aac(1) & 21.11.2024 U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The It Act Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Swatantryavir Savarkar Nagari Sahakari Patanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2796/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2796 & 2798/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Swatantryavir Savarkar Nagari Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patanstha Maryadit, Income Tax Department. 1, Javer Bhuvan, Opposite Rathi Sadan, Subnash Road, Nashik Road, Nashik- 422101. Pan : Aaqcs3784G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 18.11.2024 U/S 271Aac(1) & 21.11.2024 U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The It Act Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Balasaheb Ganpat Jare, Beed vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2325/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Balasaheb Ganpat Jare, Beed vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2324/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Shanayaa Industries Private Limited, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

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

ITA 2279/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2279/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Shanayaa Industries Private Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Limited, Tax Department. H.No.1659, Survey No.5, Kirwali Village, Opp. Santosh Hotel, Panvel, Raigarh- 410208. Pan : Aazcs6034L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. When The Matter Had Come Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed Despite Due Service Of Notice Of Hearing. From Perusal Of The Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Anees Begum, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 971/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.971/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Anees Begum Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Bbhb8220J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Spg Mudaliar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/02/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

ITA No 971 of 2024 Anees Begum आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Lakshmi Mata Himghar Pvt Ltd, Naisarai, Arambag vs. ACIT Cir-23(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 913/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle-23(1), Lakshmi Mata Himghar Pvt. Hooghly Ltd. Naisarai, Arambag, Grand Trunk Rd., Chinsurah Vs. Dist. Hooghly-712602, R.S., Chinsurah-712102, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl5463F Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 39

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

M/S Funidea Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2583/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2583/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Funidea Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.…………………………………..….……….Appellant 2, Lal Bazar Street, 1St Floor, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aabcf9340C] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 11.12.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.33,511/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Under Limited Scrutiny Criteria For The Reason Of Selection Of Low Income Compared To High Loans/Advances/Investment In Shares Appearing In Balance Sheet & Expenses Debited To P&L A/C For Earning Exempt Income As Per Schedule Bp Of Itr Is Significantly Lower As Compared To Investments Made To Earn Exempt Income. Subsequently, Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee & Also Notice

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy

Samaresh Paul, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward 25(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2574/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2574/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Samaresh Paul……...…... .……………………………………..….……….Appellant 16C, Bose Pukur Road, Kolkata – 700042. [Pan: Aeupp8135R] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwa & T. Wasi, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,42,850/-. The Assessee Thereafter Filed His Revised Return Of Income U/S 139(5) Of The Act By Declaring The Same Total Income. However, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Has Made Property Transaction Of Rs.98,51,000/- During The F.Y 2015-16 Relevant To A.Y 2016-17 Which Has Been Escaped Within The Meaning Of Section 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued Followed By Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act. However, The Assessee Did Not Turn Up In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Made

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy

Krishnasamy Sathyanathan Ramprasad, Chengalpattu vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corp. Ward 22(4), Tambaram.

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

ITA 3364/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3364/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Krishnasamy Sathyanathan Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ramprasad, No. 174, Anna Salai, Non Corporate Ward 22(4), Chengalpattu 603 001. Tambaram, Chennai. [Pan:Aempr9403C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R.S. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Lakshmi Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CiT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 30.04.2022. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. Despite various notices issued including show-cause notice & letter, the details and documents called for in respect

Jayashree and Company, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

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

ITA 3350/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3349 & 3350/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 Jayashree & Company, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1-B, Kumar Nagar West, Ward 1(2), Valayangadu, Tirupur 641 603. Tiruppur. [Pan:Aaefj4555F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 18.11.2024 & 14.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2018-19 Under Sections 271(1)(B) & 271(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CiT
Section 142(1)Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)

following due procedure. However, the assessee could not file the return of income. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act dated 09.08.2023 & 20.09.2023, against which, there was no response from assessee. 3 I.T.A. Nos.3349 & 3350/Chny/24 6. Since the assessee could not filed any reply ... notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 09.08.2023 & 20.09.2023, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. As the assessee has committed default as per the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act for two times, the Assessing Officer levied

Jayashree and Company, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tiruppur

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

ITA 3349/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3349 & 3350/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 Jayashree & Company, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1-B, Kumar Nagar West, Ward 1(2), Valayangadu, Tirupur 641 603. Tiruppur. [Pan:Aaefj4555F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 18.11.2024 & 14.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2018-19 Under Sections 271(1)(B) & 271(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CiT
Section 142(1)Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)

following due procedure. However, the assessee could not file the return of income. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act dated 09.08.2023 & 20.09.2023, against which, there was no response from assessee. 3 I.T.A. Nos.3349 & 3350/Chny/24 6. Since the assessee could not filed any reply ... notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 09.08.2023 & 20.09.2023, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. As the assessee has committed default as per the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the Act for two times, the Assessing Officer levied

Dhasaratharaman Gopikrishnan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 3344/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3344/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dhasaratharaman Gopikrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 6, Lakshmi Nagar, Nandhivaram, Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Guduvancheri, Kanchipuram 603 202. Tambaram. [Pan:Airpg0033A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 20 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Made By The Assessing Officer Without

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 69A

Agency. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act requiring the assessee to furnish a return of his income. For the AY 2017-18, the assessee filed his return of income under ... section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 01.11.2018, but, not filed return of income in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued calling for financial details of the assessee and there was no response from

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jagannathan Sekat, Chennai

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

ITA 2220/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’"यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Arthi Baliga, Chennai vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

with the copy of the decision was submitted during the Assessment proceedings (at Page 150 of ADP) as response to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act and this response has also been acknowledged in Paragraph 3 of the assessment order in Page 3 of the assessment order

M/S. Saketh Builders, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 44/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivakumar G, CA
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69

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

Rakesh Mulchand Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-26(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 6598/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Due Date For Filing The Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Viz. 31/03/2017, Thereby The Notice U/S.148 & Consequential Reassessment Order Passed U/S.147 Is Bad In Law;

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

reopening by filing a letter, dated 17/02/2017, which were disposed off by way of order,dated 03/03/2017.Thereafter, once again, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 14/09/2017 and Assessee was asked to furnish the details. The Assessing Officer found that in the return of income ... notice under Section 148 of the Act could not have been issued since the time limit for issuing the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act as well as the time limit for filing of the belated return was available with the Assessee. Reliance was placed by the Assesseeon

Janpriya Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Navi Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 27 1, Vashi Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 6516/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 12Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 32Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT