Koneru Rajendra Prasad v. ACIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 4108 (Chen-Trib) IN THE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH MAHAVIR SINGH, V.P. & MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, A.M. Koneru Rajendra Prasad v. ACIT ITA No. 1407/CHNY/2019 27 June, 2023 Appellant by: D. Anand (Advocate)-Learned Authorized Representative Respondent by: S. Senthil Kumaran (Commissioner)- Learned Departmental Representative ORDER *Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.* 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee assails the invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 for assessment year (AY) 2010-11 as exercised by learned Principal Commissioner, Central-1, Chennai (Pr. CIT) vide Impugned Order dated 6-3-2019 in the matter an assessment framed by learned assessing officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 26-12- 2016. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: - (1) The order under section 263 passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central-1, Chennai for the assessment year 2010-11 in the appellant's case is contrary to law, facts of the case and material on record. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 4108 (Chen-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH

MAHAVIR SINGH, V.P. & MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, A.M.

Koneru Rajendra Prasad v. ACIT

ITA No. 1407/CHNY/2019

27 June, 2023

Appellant by: D. Anand (Advocate)-Learned Authorized Representative

Respondent by: S. Senthil Kumaran (Commissioner)- Learned Departmental Representative

ORDER

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

1. By way of this appeal, the assessee assails the invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 for assessment year (AY) 2010-11 as exercised by learned Principal Commissioner, Central-1, Chennai (Pr. CIT) vide Impugned Order dated 6-3-2019 in the matter an assessment framed by learned assessing officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 26-12- 2016. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: -

(1) The order under section 263 passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central-1, Chennai for the assessment year 2010-11 in the appellant's case is contrary to law, facts of the case and material on record.