BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

71 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 73clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,295Mumbai980Ahmedabad246Jaipur210Chennai191Indore174Bangalore163Kolkata155Hyderabad140Karnataka123Raipur110Pune99Visakhapatnam71Chandigarh64Cuttack56Cochin47Lucknow38Calcutta35Amritsar34Rajkot32Surat28Allahabad28Ranchi25Dehradun18Kerala14Guwahati12Nagpur11Patna10Panaji9Jodhpur8Jabalpur8Agra5Rajasthan3SC3Telangana2Varanasi2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)109Section 143(3)51Addition to Income46Penalty37Section 153A27Section 27426Section 133A22Survey u/s 133A21Section 132

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI M. SOMABRAHMAM,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 126/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

73,191.00 The AO has imposed the penalty of Rs.49,11,957/-@ 30% on the above income under section 271AAB of IT act. 3.(i) With regard to item No.5 and 6 i.e. income from business of construction of apartment complex in the name of Sanjeevini Mansion and the income admitted by the assessee towards discrepancies amounting

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4

17
Section 234E16
Section 194C15
Capital Gains11

MOTHUKURI SOMABRAHMAM,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 132/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

73,191.00 The AO has imposed the penalty of Rs.49,11,957/-@ 30% on the above income under section 271AAB of IT act. 3.(i) With regard to item No.5 and 6 i.e. income from business of construction of apartment complex in the name of Sanjeevini Mansion and the income admitted by the assessee towards discrepancies amounting

VISAKHAPATNAM INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 657/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Cit – Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Visakhapatnam Gvmc Room No.204 Tenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam – 530002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

73 taxmann.com 248 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the revenue against the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by holding that the notice issued by the AO u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CHILUKURI HOUSING PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 243/VIZ/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jan 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Chilukuri Housing Projects Visakhapatnam. Pvt. Ltd., 9-21-17/2, Ground Floor, Street No. 21, Cbm Compound, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aadcc 1027 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Appala Raju – Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

73 Taxman.com 248(SC). Ld. DR’s argument that the case is distinguishable on facts is not acceptable since the Ld. DR relied on the passing observation of the Hon’ble High Court of AP. In the assessee’s case, the issue is the defective notice u/s 271(1)(c) but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issued u/s

SRI VENKATESWARAVADDERA COOLIE SANGAM,,ELURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shri Venkateswara Vaddera Vs. Income Tax Officer Coolie Sangam Ward-1 D.No.6A-13-6, Ponangi Road Eluru Southern Street Eluru [Pan :Aacts4370F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

73 Taxman.com 248(SC). Ld.DR’s argument that the case is distinguishable on facts is not acceptable since the Ld.DR relied on the passing observation of the Hon’ble High Court of AP. In the assessee’s case, the issue is the defective notice u/s 271(1)(c) but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issued u/s 271

RAGHURAM HUME PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.233/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Raghuram Hume Pipes Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Guntur-522002. Income Tax, Pan: Aaccr6125N Circle-2(1), Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(2)

U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable. On this issue, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Muninaga Reddy vs. ACIT (2017) 37 taxmann.com 440 (Bangalore – Trib.). The Ld. AR also argued that the Ld. AO has not specified under which limb of section 271

SRI SURYA ANJANEYA INDUSTRIES,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. Sri Surya Anjaneya Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Industries, D.No. 108/12, Vizianagaram. Opp.Fire Station, K.L.Puram, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram. Pan No. Abgfs 0809 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.V. Subba Rao– Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

73 Taxman.com 248(SC). Ld. DR‟s argument that the case is distinguishable on facts is not acceptable since the Ld. DR relied on the passing observation of the Hon‟ble High Court of AP. In the assessee‟s case, the issue is the defective notice u/s 271(1)(c) but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issued u/s

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HARI PRASAD BHARARIA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as C

ITA 532/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Visakhapatnam. B-101, Vuda Apartments, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.43/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 532/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2009-10) Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, B-101, Vuda Apartments, Visakhapatnam. Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal – Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 274Section 292Section 292B

u/s 271(1)(c) and issued show cause notice in the printed proforma of penalty. The AO has issued the penalty notice which reads as under : “WHEREAS in the course of the proceeding before me for the Asst. Year 2007-08 it appears to me that you have concealed the particulars of your some or furnished inaccurate particulars of such

D. PADMANABHAIAH,SECUNDERABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 479/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bled. Padmanabhaiah, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Flat No. 201, Manjeera Homes, Vijayawada. Phase-Ii, Near More Super Market, East Anandbagh, Malkajigiri, Secunderabad. Pan No. Afvpd 7527 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal – Sr.DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act does not contain the ground on which the penalty would be imposed, therefore, such notice has no legal sanctity, therefore, the penalty imposed is against the law and the penalty order is to be quashed." 5. Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer dated

MATHALA VENKATA SURYA SIVA PRASAD, ,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.113/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Mathala Venkata Surya Vs. Income Tax Officer Siva Prasad Ward-4 D.No.29-1-23C Rajahmundry Devichowk, Rajahmundry [Pan :Adcpm6281E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

73 Taxman.com 248(SC). Ld.DR’s argument that the case is distinguishable on facts is not acceptable since the Ld.DR relied on the passing observation of the Hon’ble High Court of AP. In the assessee’s case, the issue is the defective notice u/s 271(1)(c) but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issued u/s 271

B.ADINARAYANA,,ANAKAPALLE vs. THE ITO,, ANAKAPALLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/VIZ/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleb. Adinarayana, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, S/O Ramu Naidu, D.No. 5-9-32, Anakapalle. Lakshmi Devi Peta, Anakapalle-1. Pan No. Aetpb 5443 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.V.S. Murthy – FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Aravindakshan – Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

73 Taxman.com 248(SC). Ld. DR’s argument that the case is distinguishable on facts is not acceptable since the Ld. DR relied on the passing observation of the Hon’ble High Court of AP. In the assessee’s case, the issue is the defective notice u/s 271(1)(c) but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issued u/s

MARPUDI PUSHKALA RANI ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/VIZ/2018[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blesmt. Marpudi Pushkala Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), D.No. 12-7-110/2, Flat No. 304, Guntur. Smr Vinay Elegance, Kesavanagar Colony, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. Pan No. Awmpm 8121 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) is liable to be cancelled in as much as the notice dt.18-11-2011 initiating the penalty proceedings did not specify clearly as to whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 5. Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing

DR. BALABHADRA SUJATHA,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE DY. CIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/VIZ/2017[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Feb 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Murthy – Sr.DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

73 Taxman.com 248(SC). Ld. DR’s argument that the case is distinguishable on facts is not acceptable since the Ld. DR relied on the passing observation of the Hon’ble High Court of AP. In the assessee’s case, the issue is the defective notice u/s 271(1)(c) but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issued u/s

DR. BALABHADRA SUJATHA,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE DY. CIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 250/VIZ/2017[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Feb 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Murthy – Sr.DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

73 Taxman.com 248(SC). Ld. DR’s argument that the case is distinguishable on facts is not acceptable since the Ld. DR relied on the passing observation of the Hon’ble High Court of AP. In the assessee’s case, the issue is the defective notice u/s 271(1)(c) but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issued u/s

YARAMATI VEERA RAGHAVULU,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleyaramati Veera Raghavulu, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Prop. Gowthami Refrigeration Rajamahendravaram. Services, D.No. 36-10-47, Stadium Road, Innispeta, Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aanpy 9557 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

73 Taxman.com 248(SC). Ld. DR‟s argument that the case is distinguishable on facts is not acceptable since the Ld. DR relied on the passing observation of the Hon‟ble High Court of AP. In the assessee‟s case, the issue is the defective notice u/s 271(1)(c) but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issued u/s

PUSARLA SUBHASH,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blepusarla Subhash, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-13-6, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Krishna Nagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aigpp 2446 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Das – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) is liable to be cancelled in as much as the notice dt.29-02-2016 initiating the penalty proceedings did not specify clearly as to whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 5. Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing

T.SATYANARAYANA,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/VIZ/2017[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Feb 2020AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bletalluri Satyanarayana, Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Prop. : Sairam Parlour, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 47-11-9, Diamond Park, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaqpt 9170 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U.Mini Chandran,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

73 Taxman.com 248(SC). Ld. DR‟s argument that the case is distinguishable on facts is not acceptable since the Ld. DR relied on the passing observation of the Hon‟ble High Court of AP. In the assessee‟s case, the issue is the defective notice u/s 271(1)(c) but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issued u/s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, KAKINADA vs. SHREE GOWTHAMI RICE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, CHELLURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 304/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.304/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Shree Gowthamee Rice Income Tax Industries (P) Ltd. Cicle-1 S.No.721 & 722 Kakinada Main Road, Rayavaram Mandalam Chelluru [Pan : Aaqcs6580A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

73 Taxman. corn 248(SC). Ld.DR's argument that the case is distinguishable on facts is not acceptable since the Ld.DR relied on the passing observation of the Hon'ble High Court of AR In the assessee's case, the issue is the defective notice u/s 271(1)(c) but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issued u/s 271

GADDE HARI PRASADA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 368/VIZ/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

73 Taxman.com 248(SC). Ld. DR‟s argument that the case is distinguishable on facts is not acceptable since the Ld. DR relied on the passing observation of the Hon‟ble High Court of AP. In the assessee‟s case, the issue is the defective notice u/s 271(1)(c) but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issued u/s

GADDE KISHNA,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 367/VIZ/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

73 Taxman.com 248(SC). Ld. DR‟s argument that the case is distinguishable on facts is not acceptable since the Ld. DR relied on the passing observation of the Hon‟ble High Court of AP. In the assessee‟s case, the issue is the defective notice u/s 271(1)(c) but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issued u/s