CHAPARALA BABU RAO, REP. SRI G. HARI PRASAD,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Dy.Director Of Income Tax 7-17-1, Main Road (It&Tp) Kirlampudi Layout Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adcpc4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.180-182/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep.Assessee Of (International Taxation) (I) Sri K.Vemlata Rao Visakhapatnam (Ii) Sri G.Hari Prasad (Iii) Smt.S.Sailaja Naidu D.No.10-50-19, 4Th Floor “Soudamani” Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

234B of the IT. Act, was not correct Hence, the same may kindly be cancelled. 4. The case law relied upon by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A and Sec.234B are not applicable in the appellant's case and the facts of the said case are distinguishable and the case

CHAPARALA BABU RAO, REP. OF K. VEMLATA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Dy.Director Of Income Tax 7-17-1, Main Road (It&Tp) Kirlampudi Layout Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adcpc4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.180-182/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep.Assessee Of (International Taxation) (I) Sri K.Vemlata Rao Visakhapatnam (Ii) Sri G.Hari Prasad (Iii) Smt.S.Sailaja Naidu D.No.10-50-19, 4Th Floor “Soudamani” Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

234B of the IT. Act, was not correct Hence, the same may kindly be cancelled. 4. The case law relied upon by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A and Sec.234B are not applicable in the appellant's case and the facts of the said case are distinguishable and the case

CHAPARALA BABU RAO, REP. OF S. SAILAJA NAIDU,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Dy.Director Of Income Tax 7-17-1, Main Road (It&Tp) Kirlampudi Layout Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Adcpc4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.180-182/Viz/2018 (धििाारणिर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) Chaparala Babu Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep.Assessee Of (International Taxation) (I) Sri K.Vemlata Rao Visakhapatnam (Ii) Sri G.Hari Prasad (Iii) Smt.S.Sailaja Naidu D.No.10-50-19, 4Th Floor “Soudamani” Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 28.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

234B of the IT. Act, was not correct Hence, the same may kindly be cancelled. 4. The case law relied upon by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A and Sec.234B are not applicable in the appellant's case and the facts of the said case are distinguishable and the case

V.PRATIMA RAO, REPRESENTED BY DR. P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee and the Rep. assessee

R.MANI KUMAR REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee and the Rep. assessee

LALITHA D.V.RAO REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee and the Rep. assessee

V.UJAVALA RAO REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee and the Rep. assessee

V.GAUTAM RAO REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL,,VISAKHPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee and the Rep. assessee

R.SMITHA SHARMA REPRESENTED BY DR.P.VENUGOPAL, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, VISAKHAPATANAM

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.69/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Pratima Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.70/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Gautam Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.71/Viz/2018 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) V.Ujvala Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. Assessee By Dr.P.Venugopal (International Taxation) 49-35-7, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam {Pan :Aempp5934Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

234B 5. and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 4 ITA Nos.69-74/Viz/2018 Dr.P.Venugopal, Visakhapatnam The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or 6. any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. P.Venu Gopal, vendee and the Rep. assessee

USHA RANI CHEBROLU,GUNTUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.532/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Usha Rani Chebrolu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(1), Pan: Abmpc8555B Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

reassessment proceedings are invalid and void ab initio. 4. The notice U/s. 148 dated 8/4/2022 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur is invalid for the reason that i. the notice has been issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of by the National Faceless Assessment centre as mandated by the e-assessment of income escaping assessment

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

4 is dismissed. 5.5 Charging of interest u/s.234A& 234B being consequential in nature, ground of appeal no.5 is dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed.” 18 Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited 11. The assessee company, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 12. We have heard

KAKRLA SURYA GANGADHAR TILAK,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

4. The CIT (Appeals) is not justified in rejecting the plea of the assessee that the order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 dated 25.03.2015 is barred by limitation as the same is served on the assessee on 17.05.2016. 5. The CIT (Appeals) is not justified in rejecting the plea of the assessee that the order passed under section

KAKARLA GUNA VIDYA SARASWATHI,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

4. The CIT (Appeals) is not justified in rejecting the plea of the assessee that the order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 dated 25.03.2015 is barred by limitation as the same is served on the assessee on 17.05.2016. 5. The CIT (Appeals) is not justified in rejecting the plea of the assessee that the order passed under section

P.SUDARSHAN,,`VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), , VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.53/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) P.Sudarshan Vs. Income Tax Officer 33-12-35, Devangula Veedhi Ward-1(2) Allipuram Direct Taxes Building Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahwpp6272G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Sanjeevarao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) are bad in law and arbitrary. 4 I.T.A. No.53/Viz/2020, A.Y.2007-08 P.Sudarsan, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam 1.1. It is the case of appellant that the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Learned Assessing Officer who had reassessed the income originally had verified all the documents resulting

YALAMANCHILI NEELIMA,,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

234B of the Act. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 9. 5. Grounds No.1 and 9 are general in nature and need no adjudication. 6. In Ground No.2 the assessee raised objection for the issuance of notice U/s. 148 of the Act and pleaded that the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed as void