RAMACHANDRAN BANDHUVULA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ramachandran Vs. Income Tax Officer Bandhuvula, Hyderabad Ward 3(1) Pan:Aczpb3228M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) 15 Erroneous To The Extent It Is Prejudicial To The Appellant. 2. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Levy Of Penalty U/S 271D Of The I.T Act. Without Giving Proper Opportunity. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Observed That The Transaction Of Sale Doesn'T Fall During The Previous Year Relevant For Assessment Year Under Consideration As The Registration Took Place On. 20.01.2016 Relevant For The Assessment Year 2016-17. Page 1 Of 8

271 D of the I.T. Act 1961 , reliance is placed on the following authorities : (i) 245 ITR 661(Karn)-Chamundi Granites Pvt Ltd- While affirming the Hon.Karnataka High Court order, the Hon.Apex Court(255 ITR 258,266- SC) ruled that sec.269. which prescribes the mode of taking or accepting certain loans or deposits, is not discriminatory and is not violative