← 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)

Dalavai Audikesavulu Srinivas L/H of Late Smt D A Sathyaprabha, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1050/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69B

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

Dalavai Audikesavulu Srinivas L/H of Late Smt D A Sathyaprabha, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1049/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69B

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

Flourish Techno & Real Estate Private Limited, R T Nagar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 3(1)(1), ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 2435/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

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

Kuntal Hasmukhlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8360/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkuntal Hasmukhlal Shah Acit-4(1)(1) 104, 1St Floor, Plot No. 53, Aayakar Bhawan, Panchsheel, P. M. Shukla Vs. Churchgate, Marg, C-Road, Mumbai-400 020 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aagps5867F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashok Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2026

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

earning of exempt income. Statutory notice under section 143(2) dated 09.08.2018 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Further notice under section 142(1) dated 13.08.2019 was also issued. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned exempt income comprising dividend income

Laxmanaram Ganchi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 8359/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 115Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘J (SMC)’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

S R Jewels, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 5938/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2009-10 S R Jewels, Income Tax Officer, 33, B J Industrial Estate, Ward-34(3)(5), Moti Udyog Bhavan, Vs. 126, Kautilya Bhavan, Kanchpada, Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad West, Bandra East, Mumbai-400064. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aayfs8159E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.C. Modi / Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke For Revenue : Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr.Dr (Virtually Present) Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-01-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri R.C. Modi /For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 69Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM

Reliance Retail Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3509/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 143(3)Section 194C

enquiries on all the issues which required examination. 4.1 Regarding the prior period expenses, the Id counsel firstly, referred to the notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act dated 17/10/2022 ( PB: 87-92) ( wrongly recorded by Id PCIT in impugned order as notice dated 14/10/2024) calling for the details ... profit declared. In the course of such scrutiny, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act (dated 17.10.2022) calling for detailed information relating to receipts, expenditure, and allied issues. In examining the veracity of receipts and profitability, the Assessing Officer necessarily examined the corresponding expenditure structure

Aunali Akbarali Rupani, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Churchgate Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3381/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaraunali Akbarali Rupani V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income A/101, Dheeraj Gaurav 2, बनाम Tax, Circle – 4(1)(1), Range Opp. Raheja Classic Off 441, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Andheri Link Road, Mumbai 400001, Maharashtra – 400 001, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Adgpr0681K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194HSection 68

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Rekha Gupta, Motihari vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 81/PAT/2025[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.81/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 1991-92 Rekha Gupta………..………….………………. …………………....Appellant Balua Tal, Motihari, East Champaran, Bihar-845401. [Pan: Adkpg6602P] Vs. Acit, Cc, Muzaffarpur………...……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.12.2024 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 1991-92. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business & Other Sources. During The Relevant Period, The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Sale Of Liquor On Wholesale & Retail Basis In The Proprietary Concern Styled As M/S Surya Enterprises. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132(1) Of The Act Was Conducted At The Business Premises As Well As The Residential Premises Of The Assessee. Pursuant Thereto, An Assessment

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 158BSection 250

direction to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law. In pursuance of the Tribunal’s directions, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) for the block period. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹24,23,499 on account of alleged undisclosed investment

Bhola Prasad, Gaya vs. Income Tax Officer, Gaya

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

ITA 339/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.339/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bhola Prasad..………………….………………. …………………....Appellant Manpur Ptwatoli Durga Asthan, Gaya, Bihar-823001.. [Pan: Auzpp5136D] Vs. Ito, Gaya…………..………..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Jitendra Kr. Sinha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.05.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Textile. For The Assessment Year 2017–18, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹3,10,520. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass On Account Of High-Value Cash Deposits During The Demonetisation Period, As Reported Through Third-Party Information. Notices Under Section 143(2) Followed By Notices Under Section 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Were Issued. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That Cash Deposits Aggregating To ₹97,64,000, Predominantly In

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44ASection 69

high-value cash deposits during the demonetisation period, as reported through third-party information. Notices under section 143(2) followed by notices under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that cash deposits aggregating ... cash deposits, sales and purchase records and explanation regarding source of cash. However, the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued under section 142(1). Subsequently, statement under section 131 was recorded, wherein the assessee denied having carried out any business activity during the relevant demonetisation period and also

Birju Kumar, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 4 (1), Patna

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

ITA 296/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.296/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Birju Kumar…………………….………………. …………………....Appellant Daulatpur Masaurhi, Patna, Bihar- 804452.. [Pan: Daspk0454F] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Patna………..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee’S Case Was Reopened By Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, On The Basis Of Information Received Through Form 26As / Statement Of Specified Financial Transactions (Sft) Under Section 285Ba(1), Indicating Cash Withdrawals Amounting To ₹1,07,38,557 During The Relevant Previous Year. The Assessee Did Not File Return Of Income In Response To The Notice Under Section 148. Thereafter, Notices Under Sections 142(1) & 143(2) Were Issued On Various Dates. Despite Issuance Of Statutory Notices, The Assessee Failed To Comply & Did Not

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 285B

relevant previous year. The assessee did not file return of income in response to the notice under section 148. Thereafter, notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued on various dates. Despite issuance of statutory notices, the assessee failed to comply and did not I.T.A. No.296/Pat/2025 Birju Kumar

Sanddep Tiwari, West Champaran vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Bettiah, West Champaran

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 255/PAT/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.255/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandeep Tiwari..…………….………………. …………………....Appellant Vill: Alitolla, Po Thakraha, Via Nechua Jalalpur, West Champaran, Bettiah, Bihar- 841503.. [Pan: Apopt9064Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Bettiah…....…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singla, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 09, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.05.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Information Available On The Aims Module Of The Income-Tax Department, It Was Noticed That During The Period 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 (Demonetisation Period), The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of ₹10,00,000 In His Bank Account Maintained With Bank Of India. Accordingly, Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Along With A Questionnaire Was Issued. Since There Was Non-Compliance On The Part Of The Assessee, A Final

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

period), the assessee had made cash deposits of ₹10,00,000 in his bank account maintained with Bank of India. Accordingly, notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 along with a questionnaire was issued. Since there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee

Nirmal Ramtani, Bhopal vs. DCIT-Central-1, Bhopal

ITA 634/IND/2025[2015-2016]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 153ASection 153DSection 246ASection 250Section 253

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Harish Chandra Purohit, Ratlam vs. Income Tax Officer - 1, Ratlam

In the result- the Impugned order is set aside as and by way

ITA 221/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

That it is also recorded in the aforesaid ‘Assessment Order” that the assessee failed to comply with the requirements of the notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued and delivered to the assessee through email and also to the registered account of the assessee. Vide ... 21/02/2023, and requested for adjournment for one week, however the assessee again failed to comply with the requirements of the notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A letter dated 28/02/2023 was issued to the assessee, affording him another opportunity to provide the requisite information, explanation

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Kriti Nutrients Limited, Indore

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 780/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 246ASection 250Section 253

filing portal and through the 'e- proceeding tab 3. It may please be noted that failure to comply with the notice under section 142(1) will result in exparte assessment order and other penal consequences DIN: BA/AST/F/143(3)(SCN)/20 = 22-23/1047750845(1) dated 01.12.2022 Your attention is invited

Kumar Properties and Real Estate Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14, Pune

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

ITA 2798/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 270A

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

Kumar Matunga Project, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2200/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 69

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

Kishore Kashinath Koli, Panvel vs. CIT(A), Delhi

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

ITA 2179/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Mrs. Naina ChaurasiaFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

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

Yadiki Pacs, Anantapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anantapur

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

ITA 926/HYD/2025[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026

Bench: the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the Order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad rejecting the appellant's application filed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act to condone the delay in filing the Income Tax Return for the subject AY 2019-20 is pending for disposal as on date. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act in consequence to the above." 3

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 80ASection 80P

Yadiki PACS 4. During the course of reassessment proceedings, several opportunities were provided to the assessee by issuing notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2). Though the assessee filed partial replies along with certain details on 10.09.2023, it failed to furnish sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the nature

Sreemath Khadri Lakhsmi Narasimhaswamy Devasthanam, Kadiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1479/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1477, 1478 & 1479/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2016-2017, 2022-2023 & 2023-2024 Sreemath Khadri Lakhsmi The Income Tax Officer, Narasimhaswamy Vs. Exemption Ward, Devasthanam, Kadiri Tirupati – 517 507. Andhra Pradesh. Pin – 515 591. Pan Aaajs5401M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pv Raghavendra Kumar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA PV Raghavendra KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA