DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

68 (SC)  V Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT/EPT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC)  ITO Vs. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad [1989] 176 ITR 529 (SC) 14. The learned Counsel for the assessee further referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC), and ITO Vs. Mewalal

SUJIT AGARWAL ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sujit Agarwal Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(2) Pan:Aclpa3197P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.01.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & The Managing Director Of The Company, M/S. Sawaria Pipes Pvt Ltd. He Filed His Original Return Of Income For The Impugned A.Y On 30.12.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.20,13,600/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.70,200/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted In The Case Of The Assessee On 12.01.2016. In Response To Notice U/S 153A Of The Act Issued On 6.9.2016, The Assessee Filed His Return

68 of the I.T. Act which has been sustained by the learned CIT (A) is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. He submitted that the original return was filed on 30.12.2014 and the time limit for issuing notice u/s 143(2) had expired when the search took place u/s 132 on 12.01.2016. Thus

JITENDER KUMAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Jitender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aappg6606B Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Virender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaspg1887D Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 27.07.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessees In Both These Appeals, Therefore, For Page 1 Of 23

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated separate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: Page 3 of 23 ITA Nos 507 and 508 of 2022 Jitender Kumar Gupta & Virender Kumar Gupta Page

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. VIRENDER KUMAR GUPTA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Jitender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aappg6606B Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Virender Kumar Gupta Vs. A.C.I.T Hyderabad Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaspg1887D Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. T.H. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 27.07.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessees In Both These Appeals, Therefore, For Page 1 Of 23

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated separate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: Page 3 of 23 ITA Nos 507 and 508 of 2022 Jitender Kumar Gupta & Virender Kumar Gupta Page

GIRISH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 in respect of net long term capital gain of Rs. 5,96,11,906/- especially in the absence of any incriminating evidence/material and/or asset found during the course of search.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried out in the premises of M/s. AMR India

MAHESH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 in respect of net long term capital gain of Rs. 5,96,11,906/- especially in the absence of any incriminating evidence/material and/or asset found during the course of search.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried out in the premises of M/s. AMR India

RADHIKA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 in respect of net long term capital gain of Rs. 5,96,11,906/- especially in the absence of any incriminating evidence/material and/or asset found during the course of search.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried out in the premises of M/s. AMR India

LATHA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 in respect of net long term capital gain of Rs. 5,96,11,906/- especially in the absence of any incriminating evidence/material and/or asset found during the course of search.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried out in the premises of M/s. AMR India