RAMESH SISTLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

68 of the Act, thereby determining the total income at Rs.13,00,94,230/-. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, since the assessee repeatedly sought adjournments in response to notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was dismissed

BRIJESH CHANDWANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-2021 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The Dcit, Circle-6(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Pan Adkpc1537H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Ar

68. In addition to the above, the time granted to the petitioner to respond to the notice dated 30.05.2022 - the period of two weeks -is also required to be excluded by virtue of the third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. The petitioner had furnished its response to the notice under Section 148A

SUDHA DOSHI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO - WARD 5(1), HYDERABAD

151A of the Act. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) has no authority to pass order u/s 148A(d) and issue notice u/s 148 of the Act in contravention of judicial decisions. Hence the whole reopening proceedings and the assessment order are to be held as invalid. (Additional Ground) 4. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the decision