“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)

Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes subject to the directions contained in para 11, 18 and 19 above

ITA 913/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Ellora Inratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR

Lalita Sanjivreddy Bodkurwar, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 90/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : PUNE BENCHES : PUNE

Yogesh Gunvantlal Ronvelia, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 516/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.516/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Shri Yogesh Gunvantlal Ronvelia Income Tax Officer, 704-B/Riddhi Siddhi Apartment, [International Taxation], Surat, Vs. Halar Road, Valsad-396001 107 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan Hajira Road, Surat- 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amvpr 5835 P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 12/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 30.05.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 20.12.2018. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Cit[A], Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld A.O’S Reopening Of Assessee’S Assessment U/S 147 & Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of I.T Act. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Uphold Addition Of Rs.9,00,000/- Out Of A.O’S Addition Of Rs.11,00,000/- Made On Account Of Cash Deposit In Assessee’S Bank Account With Central Bank Of India Ignoring The Evidences & Facts That Assessee’S Father Has Withdrawn Cash From The Said Bank Account Prior To Make Deposit.”

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, "SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.516/SRT/2023

The Sagbara Dediapada Vibhag Aadivasi Mahila Vikash Bachat and Dhiran Sahkari Mandali Limited, 2017-18 vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 472/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.472/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) The Sagbara Dediapada Vibhag Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Aadivasi Mahila Vikash Vharuch, Income Tax Office, Vs. Bachat & Dhiran Sahkari Harikunj, Station Road, Mandali Ltd. Pandorimata Bharuch-356 069 Society Nr. Court, Chikda Road, Taluka: Dediapda, Dist. Narmada-393040 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadat 6688 F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 06/09/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 12/10/2023

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, "SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.472/SRT/2023 ("नधा

Genxt Mobile LLP, Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 31(1)

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2106/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hemant ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, inter-alia, upon perusal of details of unsecured loans and interest paid on such

Dheerajsingh Omprakashsingh Mohnia, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3280/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Dheerajsingh Income Tax Officer, Omprakashsingh Mohnia, Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Room No.1627, 16Th Floor, C/O. Vaish Associates, 106, Peninsula Centre, Vs. Air India Building, Dr. S.S. Rao Road, Nariman Point, Parel, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Amvpm6622M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Soni, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 69A

tune of Rs.90,00,000/- (in denomination of Rs.500 & Rs.1000 currency notes) in his bank account No.001101082440 maintained with ICICI Bank, notices under section 142(1) were issued calling upon the assessee to furnish the source of his income and detail of his stay in India during Financial Year

Hari Mittar Yadav, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5104/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 254(1)Section 50C

other sources”. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, on the basis of AIR information, it was observed that

Ganeshram Umanath Nayak, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 301/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChagFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 254(1)

return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act Ganeshram Umanath Nayak ITA no.301/Mum./2014 were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, upon perusal of the AIR information

Bharat Bhushan Verma, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of the observations above

ITA 236/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 236/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bharat Bhushan Verma Main Road, Verma Transport Bharat, Baikunth, P.O.-Baikunth, Raipur (C.G.)-493 116 Pan : Acdpv7254J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Oficer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Smt. Soni Jha, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my observations above

ITA 118/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 118/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Soni Jha 11, 557, Om Shanti Nagar, Pt. Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Naya Talab, Gadhiyari, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Arcpj5940M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekass S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N. C Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Aparna Pradhan, Kendrapara vs. ITO Kendrapada Ward, Kendrapada

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

ITA 245/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Hem Bhattad, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2314/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Hem Bhattad, National Faceless Appeal 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit Circle-3(3)(1), Hem Bhattad, Room No. 609, Aayakar 104, Bajaj Bhavan, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaaah 2399 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR

Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

ITO, Ward-31(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sharda Vinod Bhatia, Mumbai

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

ITA 2257/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalito – 31(2)(1), Vs. Sharda Vinod Bhatia, Room No. 248, 2Nd Floor 201, Model Town, Kautilya Bhavan, Mahesh Ashish Units Bkc, Bandra(E), Chs Ltd, Off Jp Road, Mumbai- 400051. 4 Bungalow, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aghpb6897P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rameshwar Meena.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bharat Kumar.AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT

Hem Bhattad, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1934/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chogule, CIT-DR

Section 37Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Kailash Judhistir Sahi, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-38, Mumbaiqqq

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed in the same terms

ITA 1637/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi, Ld. Sr

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM 1. I.T.A. No. 1636/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year

Kailash Judhistir Sahu, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-38, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed in the same terms

ITA 1636/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi, Ld. Sr

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM 1. I.T.A. No. 1636/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year

Ravesha Pigments Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi and AO (National Faceless Assessment Cenre, Delhi

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

ITA 1366/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleraveshia Pigments Ltd, Vs. Nfeac, 11Th Floor Casablanca, Delhi. Gulmohar Cross Road No. 10, Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400049. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr7272E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Bhavin . J. Marfatia.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Sayogita Nagpal. CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Shree Sai Consultants, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-12, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1286/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepcit- Room No. 808, Kautilya Shree Sai Consultants 1, Ram Krupa Devji Bhimji Lane, Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Mathurdas Road, Kandivali West, Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400067 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aamfs8806J Assessee By : Shri.Mahaveer Jain.Ar Revenue By : Shri.Dr.Kishore Dhule.Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri.Mahaveer Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Dr.kishore Dhule.CIT.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR

Sibasankar Sahu, - Deogarh vs. PCIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.217/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sibasankar Sahu, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Arnapurna Store, At: Bania Sahi, Po/Ps: Deogarh Dist-Deogarh-768108 Pan No. :Apeps 1706 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 18.03.2022, Passed In Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1041011837(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 199 Days. It Was The Submission That The Delay Was On Account Of Medical Treatment Of The Assessee’S Father & Assessee’S Wife. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Trading Of Potatoes, Onion & Garlic In The Remote Area Of The District Of Deogarh, Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Was Not Well- Versed In Taxation Issues & On Account Of The Medical Treatment Of The 2 Assessee’S Father As Also The Assessee’S Wife, The Assessee Could Not File

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 144ASection 263Section 44A