AUDREY BERNICE ROY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

282(1) read with rule 127(1), where all the notices/Intimations were uploaded in the e-portal, and just presumed that the same was served properly to assessee. It was clearly held in the following case law: [Court Rules in Favour of Fair Hearing] "Placing notice on e-portal is not service; Communication cannot be 'presumed'." MUNJAL BCU CENTRE

GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

condone the delay involved in\nfiling of the present appeal.\n5. The assessee has filed with us an application for admission of\ncertain additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate\nTribunal Rules, 1963, which comprises of the following documents:\n(i). Order issued by NHAI for Award under compulsory acquisition\nof land from assessee

KVC INFRASTRUCTURES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

282 of the Income- tax Act. 4. Failure to Consider Detailed Reply to Notice under Section 142(1): The AO ignored the appellant's response to the notice under Section 142(1), which included supporting documents and clarifications. 5. Invalid Invocation of Section 145(3): The AO invoked Section 145(3) without pointing out any defects in the audited books

MAHANKALI JYOTHI,DUBLIN, USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

condone the delay of 149 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 27/03/2018 admitting a total income of Rs.6