M.RAGHURAMA RAJU L/R OF (LATE) M RADHA MOHAN RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 529/VIZ/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2020AY 2007-08
Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.529/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08) M Raghurama Raju Vs Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) M.Radha Mohan Raju Ward-2(2) Flat No.306, Charan Castle Visakhapatnam Sairam Colony Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agxpm9324L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt U Mini Chandran, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: Delay: This Appeal Is Filed By The Legal Representative Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam In I.T.A.No.0111/2015-16/Ito,W-2(2),Vsp/2019-20 Dated 14.06.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2007-08 With A Delay Of 3 Days.
For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt U Mini Chandran, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 50C
292 of the Act is categorical and clear.
The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act.
21. All the above reasons are fully supported
