Search: reassessment | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

125 results for “reassessment”+ Section 35clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,235 Mumbai1,926 Chennai695 Bangalore671 Jaipur539 Ahmedabad428 Hyderabad369 Kolkata349 Raipur316 Chandigarh228 Indore194 Pune174 Surat166 Rajkot136 Visakhapatnam125 Amritsar124 Cochin99 Karnataka73 Patna72 Cuttack68 Nagpur65 Guwahati58 Lucknow51 Telangana47 Ranchi36 Agra35 Dehradun31 Jodhpur28 SC26 Allahabad22 Orissa9 Panaji8 Calcutta6 Rajasthan5 Kerala5 Jabalpur5 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3 Varanasi3 Gauhati1 Uttarakhand1 Madhya Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14886 Section 143(3)76 Section 14770 Addition to Income59 Section 153A39 Section 143(2)34 Condonation of Delay34 Section 13229 Section 3527

THE DEPUTY. CIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S. EFFTRONICS SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 61/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Mar 2018AY 2008-2009

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

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DRFor Respondent: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(3)

reassessment proceedings the assessee argued that the 11 schedule has no reference in Section 35(2AB) of the Act and same

Showing 1–20 of 125 · Page 1 of 7

Search & Seizure17

THE DEPUTY. CIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S. EFFTRONICS SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/VIZ/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Mar 2018AY 2009-2010

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

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DRFor Respondent: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(3)

reassessment proceedings the assessee argued that the 11 schedule has no reference in Section 35(2AB) of the Act and same

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. EFFTRONICS SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED., VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 551/VIZ/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DRFor Respondent: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(3)

reassessment proceedings the assessee argued that the 11 schedule has no reference in Section 35(2AB) of the Act and same

THE DEPUTY. CIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. M/S. EFFTRONICS SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 63/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

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

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DRFor Respondent: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(3)

reassessment proceedings the assessee argued that the 11 schedule has no reference in Section 35(2AB) of the Act and same

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI APPARAO MUKKAMALA, USA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

35. The Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (supra) while dealing with the provisions of Section 153A held that in case of absence of incriminating material seized during the search, the department is not remediless for reassessing

ARRDY ENGINEERING INNOVATIONS PVT LTD,ODISHA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 308/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.307 & 308/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Arrdy Engineering Innovations (P.) Ltd., V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Bb-8 Area 7 & 8 Income Tax Office Civil Township, Rourkela – 769004 Direct Tax Building, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 Odisha Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca4800A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

section 35(2AB) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner

AARDY ENGINEERING INNOVATION PVT LTD,ODISHA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 307/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.307 & 308/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Arrdy Engineering Innovations (P.) Ltd., V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Bb-8 Area 7 & 8 Income Tax Office Civil Township, Rourkela – 769004 Direct Tax Building, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 Odisha Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca4800A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

section 35(2AB) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG RE-BARS PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 428/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Cit – Circle – 3(1) Vs. M/S. Vizag Re-Bars Private Limited 35, 50-92-35, Sankara Matam Road Plot No. 1 Ida, Edulapaka Bonangi, Opposite Reliance Fresh Parawada Mandal – 531021 Beside Reliance Fresh, Near By Main Road Andhra Pradesh Madhuranagar, Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aabcv2581M] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

reassessment proceedings as per the substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act as per the Finance Act, 2021, subject to compliance of all the procedural requirements and the defences, which may be available to the assessee under the substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act and which may be available under

ARRDY ENGINNERING INNOVATIONS (P) LTD,ROURKELA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/VIZ/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

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

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)(ia)Section 40

reassessment proceedings U/s. 147 is not permissible merely on the basis of change of opinion because the AO for subsequent AY 2006-07 had taken a view that weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) cannot be allowed. 3. Even assuming (without admitting) that appellant was not eligible for weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenditure towards field

ARRDY ENGINEERING INNOVATINS (P) LTD,ROURKELA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/VIZ/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)(ia)Section 40

reassessment proceedings U/s. 147 is not permissible merely on the basis of change of opinion because the AO for subsequent AY 2006-07 had taken a view that weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) cannot be allowed. 3. Even assuming (without admitting) that appellant was not eligible for weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenditure towards field

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 386/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69

35. Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 387/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69

35. Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 385/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69

35. Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment

NANDIGAM VEERABRAHMAM,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 271/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Section 147 2 N. Veerabrahmam r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 31.01.2024 for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INFINITY TOWERS, SANKARMATHAM ROAD vs. AMMAJI CHENNUPATI, RAJEEVNAGAR, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the additional ground of cross-objection of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 441/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

35,92,700/-. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), inter alia, taking cognizance of the fact that the order u/s 148A(d) and the Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 27.07.2022 were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”), thus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MURALIKRISHNA VADDI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 494/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.494/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Muralikrishna Vaddi Circle 3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Pan: Awmpv9717D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Chakradhar, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 04/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri A Chakradhar, CA (Hybrid)For Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(9)Section 90

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income.” 7. Sub-section (9) of section 270A of the Act enumerates the instances of misreporting of income as under: “(9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub- section (8) shall be the following, namely:— (a)misrepresentation or suppression of facts; Page

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,, ,WRANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 409/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Oct 2018AY 2008-2009

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

For Appellant: Sri M.V.Anil Kumar, AR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153A

35,65,480 2010-11 9,86,500 2011-12 26,76,000 2012-13 78,000 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A), but not produced any evidence to establish that the cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account were related to Smt. U.Rajya Lakshmi but not belonging

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,,WARANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 407/VIZ/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Oct 2018AY 2006-2007

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

For Appellant: Sri M.V.Anil Kumar, AR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153A

35,65,480 2010-11 9,86,500 2011-12 26,76,000 2012-13 78,000 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A), but not produced any evidence to establish that the cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account were related to Smt. U.Rajya Lakshmi but not belonging

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,, WRANGAL,WRANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 411/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Oct 2018AY 2010-2011

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

For Appellant: Sri M.V.Anil Kumar, AR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153A

35,65,480 2010-11 9,86,500 2011-12 26,76,000 2012-13 78,000 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A), but not produced any evidence to establish that the cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account were related to Smt. U.Rajya Lakshmi but not belonging

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,,WRANGAL vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 413/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Oct 2018AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Sri M.V.Anil Kumar, AR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153A

35,65,480 2010-11 9,86,500 2011-12 26,76,000 2012-13 78,000 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A), but not produced any evidence to establish that the cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account were related to Smt. U.Rajya Lakshmi but not belonging