ITO., WARD -6(1), HYDERABAD vs. SIDHI JEWELLERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

reassessment notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e., DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Hyderabad on the ground that the Assessing Officer does not have jurisdiction to issue such notice and therefore, all the consequential proceedings are invalid and Page 3 of 29 liable to be dismissed. Since legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of reopening of the assessment

SIDHI JEWELLERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

reassessment notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e., DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Hyderabad on the ground that the Assessing Officer does not have jurisdiction to issue such notice and therefore, all the consequential proceedings are invalid and Page 3 of 29 liable to be dismissed. Since legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of reopening of the assessment

SIDHI JEWELLERS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

reassessment notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e., DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Hyderabad on the ground that the Assessing Officer does not have jurisdiction to issue such notice and therefore, all the consequential proceedings are invalid and Page 3 of 29 liable to be dismissed. Since legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of reopening of the assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. VASUDEVA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

reassessment notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.e., DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Hyderabad on the ground that the Assessing Officer does not have jurisdiction to issue such notice and therefore, all the consequential proceedings are invalid and Page 3 of 29 liable to be dismissed. Since legal grounds taken by the assessee challenging validity of reopening of the assessment

RAGHUNATH REDDY GANGARAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act, and also upheld the treatment of Rs.40,68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act, and also upheld the treatment of Rs.40,68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri

MADHAVA REDDY BADDEVOLU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act, and also upheld the treatment of Rs.40,68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri

SYED WARISUDDIN NAVEED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act, and also upheld the treatment of Rs.40,68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act, and also upheld the treatment of Rs.40,68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act, and also upheld the treatment of Rs.40,68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri

SYED WARISUDDIN NAVEED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the remaining appeals filed by the assessees (at Sl

money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act, and also upheld the treatment of Rs.40,68,000/- under Section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

reassess taking into consideration other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148, subject to fulfilment of the conditions envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148, and these powers are saved." 16. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

reassess taking into consideration other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148, subject to fulfilment of the conditions envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148, and these powers are saved." 16. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

reassess taking into consideration other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148, subject to fulfilment of the conditions envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148, and these powers are saved." 16. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case

SATYAM GUPTA ARAVEETI,PRAKASHAM DISTRICT vs. ITO, WARD-1, ONGOLE

reassessment order taxing cash deposited in bank account of assessee under section 69A was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded for fresh adjudication.  In the case, Smt Ramilaben B Patel vs ITO [2018] 100 Taxmann.com 325 (Ahmedabad trib.) Held that "Bank statement is not considered as Books of accounts and therefore any sum found credited

DILEEP KUMAR SAKAMURI CHENCHU VENKATA,SRIKALAHASTI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

unexplained money U/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions and dismissed the appeal based on an ex-parte order in view of the assessee-appellant’s non-prosecution. 9. The assessee, being aggrieved with the CIT(A) order, has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6 Dileep Kumar Sakamuri Chenchu Venkata

SHIVA RANJANI VEJJA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

money deposited in the bank as the income of the assessee. It was the contention of the assessee that the assessee was doing consultancy business and other jobs for which the assessee has earned the amount and thereafter, the sum was deposited in the bank account. However, the ld.CIT(A) has not considered the request of the assessee for estimating

ARCOT AFSAR BEGUM,TADIPATRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Prescribed Period. It Was Contended That The Delay Is Neither Willful Nor Deliberate But Has Occurred On Account Of Genuine & Bona Fide Reasons. Accordingly, He Prayed For Condonation Of The Delay In The Interest Of Substantial Justice. 3. Per Contra, The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. Dr") Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To The Prayer Of The Assessee. 4. We Have Carefully Considered The Submissions Of Both Sides & Perused The Condonation Petition Along With The Affidavit Placed On Record. On Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Has Shown A Reasonable & Bona Fide Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. It Is Well Settled That When Substantial Justice & Technical Considerations Are Pitted Against Each Other, The Cause Of Substantial Justice Deserves To Be Preferred. In View Of The Above Facts & Circumstances & There Being No Serious Objection From The Revenue, We Condone The Delay Of 95 Days In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. 5. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

unexplained money. Section 69A contemplates addition only where money is found in the ownership of the assessee but is not recorded in the books of account, and where the assessee fails to offer a satisfactory explanation. However, in the present case, the appellant has opted for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD, wherein the maintenance of books of account