“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)

Kalpana Mishra, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 491/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

Section 68

reproduced hereunder: 7 a. In 'limited scrutiny cases, the reasons/issues shall be forthwith communicated to the assessee concerned. b. The Questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act in 'limited scrutiny cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked up for scrutiny. Further

Chanda Devi, Samastipur vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (3), Samastipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.355/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chanda Devi……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/O Hemant Kumar Gupta, Kalyanpur, Samastipur, Bihar-848302. [Pan: Buopd4526K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Samastipur..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2024 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 Is An Individual & Engaged In Business Of Cattle Feed. The Assessing Officer Noticed During The Assessment Proceedings That The Assessee Deposited Rs.1979000/- In His Bank Account During Demonetization Period & The Assessee Did Not File Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Within Due Date Prescribed U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Requesting The Assessee To File Return. However, The Assessee Failed To Comply With The Notice As Such

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 208Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and

Kalamandir Jewellers Limited, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1012/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1012/Srt/2024

Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 270A(9)Section 37

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Mohd Zubair Asharafi, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 438/NAG/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member**

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

## **IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR** # **BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Sandhya Rajesh Bhele, Chandur Bazar, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Amravati

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 359/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Atal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN

Sudersan Gupta Shriram Kollipara, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 67/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.67/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sudersan Gupta Shriram Kollipara V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Vijayawada D.No. 30-22-76/5C Andhra Bank Upstairs Kotha Vanthena Cross Road Sitrampuram, Vijayawada – 520004 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aukpk7377E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144oSection 250Section 69A

demonetization period” available in AIMS module of ITBA, it was noticed that assessee has deposited cash during the demonetization period. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) was issued on 09.03.2018 and served on the assessee on 17.03.2018 for filing of return of income pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18. Assessee filed ... Since the return was filed beyond the date of 31.03.2018 it was considered as invalid return. Subsequently, another notice under section 142(1) was issued and duly served on the assessee. Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued to the assessee requesting to file the explanation. Ld. AO also issued notice

Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural Co-Op Society Ltd, East Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

ITA 438/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: 29.03.2022 After Obtaining Prior Approval From The Pcit, Visakhapatnam 1. In Response, Assessee Submitted Reply Through E-Mail On 24.03.2022 Stating That Assessee Is Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P Of The Act & Therefore Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148A(A) Of The Act Is Not Warranted. Ld. Ao Did Not Accept The Reply Of The Assessee & Decided That It Is A Fit Case Of Issue Of Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act For The A.Y. 2018-19 & Thereafter Passed Order Under Section 148A(D) Of The Act On 30.03.2022.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

issue notice under section 148 of the Act on 02.04.2022. In response, assessee submitted return of income on 09.04.2022. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee along with the questionnaire. A reminder on 07.07.2023 and notice under section 142(1

Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, East Godavari vs. Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1, Kakinada

ITA 437/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.437 & 438/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21) Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Deepthi Towers 5-28/1, Pandalapaka Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 Biccavole Mandal – 533345 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabap2382G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 80P

Ch Rama Rao, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 345/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.344 & 345/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 2016-17) Ch Rama Rao V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 3(4) C.R. Building 4-99, Ramavarappadu Vijayawada- 520002 Vijayawada – 521108 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfc0545L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

running a petrol bunk. The assessment was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act and accordingly statutory notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. During the re-assessment proceedings, Ld. Assessing Officer Page No. 2 I.T.A.Nos.344 & 345/VIZ/2024

Ch Rama Rao, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Vijayawada

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 344/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble Vice-

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

J.R. Jewellers Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 316/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.316/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) J.R. Jewellers Private Limited V. Acit – Circle – 2(1) D.No. 27-14-33, 1St Floor Income Tax Office, C.R. Building J.R. Plaza, Rajagopalachari Street M.G. Road, Vijayawada - 520002 Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabcb7814M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

income admitting a total income of Rs. 10,00,840/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] observed that assessee has made substantial cash

Lakshmi Tanuja Sugguna, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Vijayawada

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

ITA 182/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 29.03.2019 with the prior permission of the concerned authorities. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 30.08.2019, 07.11.2019 & 21.11.2019 calling for filing of return of income and also certain information. In response, assessee failed to furnish

Vengola Service Co Op Bank Ltd, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward 2, Aluva

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

ITA 565/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vengola Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/621 Ab, Kunnathunadu Vengola P.O., Ernakulam 683556 [Pan: Aaaav1709N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Aluva Appellant By: Shri Lokanathan R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 270ASection 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

were admittedly filed after the dates prescribed under section 139(1) and (4) or in the notices issued under section 142(1) and section 148, the returns were non est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion

Kanichukulangara Service Co Operative Bank Limited, Kanichukulangara vs. ITO, Ward 2, Alappuzha

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

ITA 653/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kanichukulangara Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kanichukulangara, Alappuzha 688544 [Pan: Aacak2630D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 5, Alappuzha Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

Quadisiyya Hajj Cell, Kollam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Kollam

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

ITA 578/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18 Quadisiyya Hajj Cell Quadisiyya Complex Thazhuthala Ito Vs. Mukathala Po Ward-3 Kollam 691 577 Kollam Pan No :Aaafq3277H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

ITANo.578/Coch/2023 Quadisiyya Hajj Cell, Kollam IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHINBENCH:COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Harinder Kaur, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3), Mohali

In the result, impugned order is set aside as and by way of remand on de novo basis

ITA 982/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 982/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Harinder Kaur, Vs. The Ito-6(3), बनाम Mohali Mohindra Complex, H.No. 9, H O. Hardaspur, 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Buspk5188G अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Cajla, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Cajla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

Olive Tree Trading Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ITO, Circle 2, Pune

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

ITA 899/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Narendra JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 40Section 69C

case was selected for limited scrutiny and the notice under section 143(2) was issued. December 03, 2019 Notices under section 142(1) were served and issued. (Other notices were issued on dated December 3, 2019, February 17, 2020, July 16, 2020, September 14, 2020, and December

M/S N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) N.A.M.Expressway Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) Delhi Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcn3131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Tarun Chanana, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad-4 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Shyam Sunder Ravinuthala, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1232/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1232/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shyam Sundar Vs. Income Tax Officer Ravinuthala Ward-10(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Amvpr6998K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Mohd Afzal, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Salaried Employee Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2016-17 On 31.03.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,33,600/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass To Verify ‘Whether Contract

For Appellant: Mohd Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant