VENKATA REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY KIRAN,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 804/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2023AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Venkata Reddy Prabhakar Reddy Kiran, The Deputy No. 1142, 35Th C Cross, Commissioner Of 26Th Main, 4Th Block, Income Tax, Jayanagar, Circle – 7(1)(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Pan: Atjpk0894J Appellant Respondent : Ms. Aprichida .K. Marak, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Subramanian .S, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-12-2023 Order Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 21.08.2023 Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055268272(1) U/S. 250 Of The Act Passed By The Nfac, Delhi On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, ("Cit(A)") , Under Section 250 Of The Act Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice & Probabilities On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Authorities Below Erred In Law In Passing Order Ex Parte Without Affording Sufficient Opportunity Of Hearing
For Respondent: Ms. Aprichida .K. Marak
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69ASection 69C
section 69C and 69A of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the case.
Page 3
13. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 70,09,873/- as interest income on the facts and circumstances of the case.
14. The learned CIT(A) failed
