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

Bench: Us:

reassessment, a notice must be served upon the assessee. The assessee on whom the notice must be sent must be a living person i.e. legal heir of the deceased assessee, for the same to be responded. This in fact is the intent and purpose of the Act. Therefore, section 292B of the Act cannot be invoked to correct a foundational/substantial

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

u/s 148. The Ld.AR relied on the provisions of section 159 of the Act. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract relevant part of the provisions of section 159 which reads as under: “159(1). Where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable

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

147 without serving Notice issued u/s 148 is a valid Order. 2) That the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that Reassessment Order passed without service of Notice issued u/s 148 is saved by provisions of Section 292B

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

147 without serving Notice issued u/s 148 is a valid Order. 2) That the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that Reassessment Order passed without service of Notice issued u/s 148 is saved by provisions of Section 292B

SHIV KUMAR MITTAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2009-10 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Acipm 3813 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vikash Modi Revenue By: Smt. V. Aparna Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is An Appeal Of The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 Against The Order Of Cit(A) – 8, Hyderabad, Dated, 16/02/2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Had Sold A Property Situated At Kondapur Grampanchayat, Serilingampally Mandal, Rr District Vide Sale Deed No. 4100/2008 Dated 5Th June, 2008 For A Consideration Of Rs. 15,48,000/-, Whereas The Guideline Value Of The Property As Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs. 50,56,000/-. Since The Assessee Did Not Offer Any Capital Gains On This Transaction To Tax, Ao Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 On 24/03/2016, Which Was Served On The Assessee By Way Of Affixture At The Last Known Address & Thereafter Notice U/S 142(1) Was Also Issued On 09/05/2016. Since There Was No Reply From The Assessee, A 2 I.T.A. No. 633/Hyd/18 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Hyd..

147] (SC), wherein it was held that – the service of the notice prescribed by Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the purpose of commencing proceedings for reassessment is not a mere procedural requirement: it is a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings for assessment under section 34 of the Act. (iii) The decision

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)

147 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

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.

147 of the I.T.Act on 09.12.2019 accepting the returned income of Rs.1,84,41,136/-. 4. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act and asked the assessee to explain as to why penalty should not be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act submitted that he has neither concealed the income nor submitted

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.

147 of the I.T.Act on 09.12.2019 accepting the returned income of Rs.1,84,41,136/-. 4. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act and asked the assessee to explain as to why penalty should not be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act submitted that he has neither concealed the income nor submitted