LATE S.SURESH LEGAL HEIR BY S.MAHESH ,SECUNDRABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed”

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2009-10

292B or 292BB of the Act. This is so as the requirement of issuing a notice in the name of correct person is the foundational requirement to acquire jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. This is evident from Section 148 of the Act, which requires that before a proceeding can be taken up for reassessment

PAYAL JINDAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Reassessment Order passed without service of Notice issued u/s 148 is saved by provisions of Section 292B. 3) That the provisions

RAJKUMAR JINDAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Reassessment Order passed without service of Notice issued u/s 148 is saved by provisions of Section 292B. 3) That the provisions

LATE RAJASEKHAR CHELIKANI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

292B or 292BB of the Act. This is so as the requirement of issuing a notice in the name of correct person is the foundational requirement to acquire jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. This is evident from section 148 of the Act, which requires that before a proceeding can be taken up for reassessment

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. DIVYA SHAKTI GRANITES LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

reassessment dt.28.12.2014 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order. Here comes the issue between the parties. 4. The assessee's case before us is that it was the DCIT, Circle 1(2), Hyderabad who had issued section 148 notice dated 10.3.2014 (Page 39). And that the said notice had been “ISSUED AFTER THE NECESSRY SATISFACTION

RAMA MOHAN SOMA,ANANTAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, HINDUPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rama Mohan Soma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H.No.12-274-3, Bypass Ward – 1, Road, Kadiri, Anantapur, Hindupur. Andhra Pradesh – 515591. Pan : Aocps8172D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2012-13 Arises From Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.27.12.2023 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

reassessment order passed without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Act cannot held as valid and sustainable and hence, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was right in holding the same as not valid and unsustainable. (iv) Travancore Diagnostics (P) Ltd. v. ACIT, (2016) 390 ITR 167 (Ker-HC). Omission to issue notice under section 143(2) is incurable defect even

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

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

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.

reassessment proceedings, the assessee would not have declared its income, since the statutory due date for filing of the return had elapsed. Referring to the conduct of the assessee in the past also, he submitted that the assessee was also a non-filer. The ld.DR drew the attention of the bench to para 7 of the penalty order which reads

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

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

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.

reassessment proceedings, the assessee would not have declared its income, since the statutory due date for filing of the return had elapsed. Referring to the conduct of the assessee in the past also, he submitted that the assessee was also a non-filer. The ld.DR drew the attention of the bench to para 7 of the penalty order which reads