KUNAPAREDDY SUJATHA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 444/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17
Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2016-17 Kunapareddy Sujatha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan : Akfpk1757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025
For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69C
vii)(b)(ii). Additionally, an expenditure of Rs.4,50,350/- on stamp duty and registration charges was treated as unexplained under Section 69C. Various penalty proceedings were initiated, including under Sections
271(1)(c), 271B, 271F, and 271(1)(b), for alleged concealment of income, failure to comply with notices, delayed filing of returns, and failure to get accounts audited
