RAMA RAO KARNAM,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-4, VISAKHAPATNAM
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed
ITA 141/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2023AY 2017-18
Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.141/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mr.Rama Rao Karanam Vs. Joint Commissioner Of 4-4 Chandrampalem, Durga Nagar Income Tax Madhurawada Range-4 Pothinamallayapalem S.O. Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Pan : [Bcppk19929Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1043662508(1) Dated 29.06.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18 On 28.03.2019, Declaring Total Income At Rs.3,20,230/-. During The Course Of Assessment
For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B
capital gains from sale of immovable property in the return of income and the penalty provisions u/s 271D of the Act does not attract since the assessee proved the genuineness of the transaction and the assessee also has reasonable cause u/s 273B and the penalty u/s 271D cannot be levied. He, therefore, pleaded to set aside the orders passed
