Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

133 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 2(22)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai697 Delhi623 Jaipur187 Ahmedabad162 Bangalore153 Chennai151 Hyderabad133 Indore122 Raipur122 Kolkata91 Pune69 Chandigarh62 Rajkot60 Surat57 Allahabad34 Visakhapatnam27 Lucknow27 Nagpur26 Amritsar22 Agra15 Ranchi14 Patna13 Cochin11 Dehradun8 Cuttack8 Guwahati7 Varanasi6 Panaji6 Jodhpur5 Jabalpur2

Key Topics

Section 143(3)76 Addition to Income76 Section 153C69 Section 271D48 Search & Seizure44 Section 80I42 Section 153A37 Section 6835 Section 147

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 231/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Showing 1–20 of 133 · Page 1 of 7

34

E R PER BENCH : These appeals of the assessee for A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017- 18 arise from the separate orders of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad dt.22.02.2023 invoking proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). ITA Nos.230 and 231/Hyd/2023 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.230/Hyd/2023 read

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 230/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

E R PER BENCH : These appeals of the assessee for A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017- 18 arise from the separate orders of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad dt.22.02.2023 invoking proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). ITA Nos.230 and 231/Hyd/2023 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.230/Hyd/2023 read

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1256/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 11Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : The appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate, but identical orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Hyderabad (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) all dated 01.07.2025, pertaining to the assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19, respectively. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, the same were

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1255/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Section 11Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : The appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate, but identical orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Hyderabad (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) all dated 01.07.2025, pertaining to the assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19, respectively. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, the same were

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1257/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 11Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : The appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate, but identical orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Hyderabad (for short “Ld. CIT(A)”) all dated 01.07.2025, pertaining to the assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19, respectively. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, the same were

VINOD AERUKALA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 235/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 217(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), at least the facts set out in Explanation 1(A) & (B) it should be discernible from the said

MOOLA PADMAJA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 234/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 217(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), at least the facts set out in Explanation 1(A) & (B) it should be discernible from the said

AGARWAL SPONGE & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pranav Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

section 2(22)(e), an amount of Rs. ITA No.1110/Hyd/2018 3 16,68,33,979/- is treated as deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profits of M/s Agarwal Industries Pvt Ltd in the hands of the assessee company and added to the income returned. In view of the above additions made, the assessee has concealed the particulars of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 64/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 50/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 54/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 53/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

D S R INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 51/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 56/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

D S R INFRASTRUCTUREPRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 49/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 57/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. BAPU REDDY JALA , NIZAMABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Vs. Shri Bapu Reddy Jala Hyderabad Nizamabad Pan:Aabci9355A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/06/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: "1. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred Both In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Granting Relief To The Assessee. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law By Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 153A Of The It Act, 1961 Dated 29.09.2021 Stating That The Sum Of Rs.75,00,000/- Not To Be Treated As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cita) Erred In Law By Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 271D Of The It Act, 1961 Dated 01.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 153ASection 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 69A

e) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. T. Perumal (2015) 53 Taxmann.com 17 f) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Dimpal Yadav (2015) 61 taxmann.com 219 Page 7 of 15 ITA No.606 of 2022 Bapu Reddy Jala g) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 644/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

e-mail on 05.04.2018. The collection and compilation of appeal papers could be completed on 05.04.2018 at the end of the office hours. 12. The delay of 593 days in filing the appeal has occurred in the above facts and circumstances. 13. The reasons for the delay are bonafide and not on account of intention or gross neglect

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1243/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

e-mail on 05.04.2018. The collection and compilation of appeal papers could be completed on 05.04.2018 at the end of the office hours. 12. The delay of 593 days in filing the appeal has occurred in the above facts and circumstances. 13. The reasons for the delay are bonafide and not on account of intention or gross neglect

BHAGAWAN SRI BALASAIBABA CENTRAL TRUST,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 618/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhagawan Sri Balasaibaba Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Central Trust, Sri Nilayam Fort, Tirupati. Andhra Pradesh. Kurnool. Pan : Aaatb3818R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Pawan kumar Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271D

E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 22.05.2024 for the AY 2016-17. 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds : “1. The impugned order of the learned Authorities below