##PAGE1##

ITA No.233/Hyd/2025

Venkata Sujatha Chruvupalli

,

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण हैदराबाद पीठ

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad

, a

्ቦी विजय पाऱ राि उपाध्य ऺ एिं

,

्ቦी मिसु दू न सािडिया ऱेखा सदस्य ् के समऺ ।

BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND

SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आ . अपी. सं /ITA No.233/Hyd/2025

(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18)

Venkata Sujatha Chruvupalli Vs. Income Tax Officer

Flat No. 311, Durga Enclave Ward-9(3)

Road No. 3, LB Nagar I.T. Tower, AC Guards

Hyderabad-500068 Masab Tank

Telangana Hyderabad – 500004

Telangana

PAN:ADBPC1041P

(Appellant) (Respondent)

निर्धाऩरती ्ቛधरध/Assessee by: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CA

रधज्ቭ. ्ቛधरध/Revenue by:: Shri Karthik Manickam, SR-DR

सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 27/01/2026

घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2026

आदेश/ORDER

Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Smt Venkata Sujatha

Chruvupalli (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order

passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”)

dated 02.01.2025 for the A.Y.2017-18.

2. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in

Page 1 of 13

ITA No.233/Hyd/2025

Venkata Sujatha Chruvupalli

passing the impugned appellate order by sustaining the

additions made by the Assessing Officer by estimating the

income from transportation business (Satya Krishna

Transport) at Rs.9,97,714/- being 8% of the turnover

declared from the said business of Rs.1,24,71,425/- and

income from petrol bunk (Satya Krishna Filling Station) at

Rs.39,58,271/- being 3% of the turnover declared from the

said business of Rs.13,19,42,368/- without relying on the

audited books of accounts submitted by the appellant and

hence the said addition is liable for deletion.

Without of Prejudice to the Ground no.1 of appeal above;

2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in

confirming the estimation of income made by the Assessing

Officer from the transportation business at 8% even though

this Hon’ble Tribunal in similar and identical facts of the

cases directed the Assessing Officers to estimate the net

profit from the transportation business at 3% considering

the same as fair and reasonable estimate of net profit from

the said business.

3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in

confirming the estimation of income made by the Assessing

Officer from the business of petrol bunk at 3% even though

Hon’ble Tribunals in various cases held that estimation of

income from the said business at 1% is reasonable due to

low margins in the said business on account of regulated

prices of petrol, diesel and oils.

4. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/modify

the grounds of appeal as may be required for proper

adjudication of the case.”

3. The assessee has also raised the following additional

grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

and in law, the notice u/s 143(2) dated 24-09-2018 by the

non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer (i.e. ITO, Ward-1,

Nalgonda) is bad-in-law; in the absence of the valid notice

issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the Jurisdictional

Assessing Officer (i.e. ITO, Ward-9(3), Hyderabad) the

impugned assessment order dated 09-12-2019 is bad-in-

law and is liable to be quashed.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

and in law, as the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act

was issued by the non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer but

not by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), the

provisions of section 124(3)(a) or 127(4) does not come into

Page 2 of 13

ITA No.233/Hyd/2025

Venkata Sujatha Chruvupalli

play and therefore the impugned assessment order is

invalid due to want of assuming valid jurisdiction by the

JAO and the same is liable to be quashed.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

and in law,