SRI P A USMAN ,SULLIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , PUTTUR
In the result, the assessee appeal in ITA No
ITA 888/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Ita Nos.888 & 889(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Years : 2014-15) Shri P.A.Usman, D No.2-106-2, Chennavara House, Peruvaje Post, Bellare, Sullia-574 212 Pan No. Aappu4406R Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. R.Premi, Jcit
For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R.Premi, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A
section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meaning. Therefore, it was imperative for the AO to strike off irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him and so that he can respond accordingly. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha
