MR. SRIDHAR MURTHY S,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, BENGALURU
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
ITA 1175/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19
Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sridhar Murthy S Vs The Income Tax Officer Karle Zenith, 100 Ft Kemapura Nfac, Delhi Main Road, Kasaba Holbli Nagavara Village Bengaluru 560043 Pan – Awzps8682D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. Rama Raju, Ca Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Nfac, Delhi/Cit(A)’S Order Dated 28.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows: - “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) , Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities On Facts & Circumstances Of Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.2,19,796/- Under The Provisions Of Section 270A Of The Act Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.
For Appellant: Shri N. Rama Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)
house property was never claimed by the assessee in any of the subsequent years. The learned A.R., by referring to Section 270A(6) of the Act, submitted that there is reasonable cause on the facts of the case and the explanation of the assessee ought to have been accepted and penalty proceedings ought to have been dropped. The learned
