← All Phrases

“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before the tribunal is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court
241
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal if they are legal in nature or go to the root of the matter, even if not raised before lower authorities or filed belatedly.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Otters Club v. DIT
392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court
202
citing judgments

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.
81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

Singhal Fincap Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-37(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2610/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmasinghal Fincap Ltd. Vs. Dcit B-64/1, Wazirpur Circle – 37(2) Industrial Area, North New Delhi West Delhi, Wazir Pur-Iii, Delhi-110 052 Pan No. Aafcs 9851 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. K. Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.05.2023

Section 147Section 148

Vivad Se Visvas Scheme 2020 and therefore the appeal was infructuous. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law order

Girdari Lal, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1636/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Jitender Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

Aggrieved by the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) without any relief. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a very old person aged

ACIT, Circle- 18(2), New Delhi vs. Ntpc Sail Power Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7326/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 32

cross objections filed separately challenging the re-opening is not pressed. NTPC Sail Power Co. P. Ltd. 3. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds :- “1. The Ld. CIT(A)has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs. 2031707651/- on account

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Trans Asia Packaging Ltd.(Amalgamated With M/S Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed ex-parte

ITA 4557/DEL/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271D

these grounds. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed.” 4. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. The matter was accordingly proceeded ex-parte

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Trans Asia Packaging Ltd.(Amalgamated With M/S Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed ex-parte

ITA 4552/DEL/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Sr.DR
Section 269SSection 271D

these grounds. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed.” 4. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. The matter was accordingly proceeded ex-parte

Samyukta Health & Academic Society, Anakapalle vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.45/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Samyukta Health & Academic Vs. Income Tax Officer Society Exemption Ward Ramalayam Street, Gandhi Nagar Visakhapatnam Anakapalle [Pan : Aagts9608E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/10482/12219(1), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 234C

filing Form No.10B belatedly, which was an essential prerequisite for allowing exemption u/s 11. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts

The District Coop Central Bank Ltd, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 39/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.38/Viz/2023 & 39/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2018-19) District Coop Central Bank Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissoner Of D.No.70-1-28/1 Income Tax Nagamallithota Junction Circle-1 Pithapuram Road Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Aaaat 4266G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2023 : 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048029461(1) Dated 15.12.2022 & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048317778(1) Dated 29.12.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 & 2018-19, Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

made by the AO, since the assessee failed to substantiate it’s claim. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

The District Coop Central Bank Ltd, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 38/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.38/Viz/2023 & 39/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2018-19) District Coop Central Bank Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissoner Of D.No.70-1-28/1 Income Tax Nagamallithota Junction Circle-1 Pithapuram Road Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Aaaat 4266G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2023 : 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048029461(1) Dated 15.12.2022 & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048317778(1) Dated 29.12.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 & 2018-19, Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

made by the AO, since the assessee failed to substantiate it’s claim. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) is erred in facts and law while passing the order ... dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) is erred in facts and law while passing the order

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) is erred in facts and law while passing the order ... dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) is erred in facts and law while passing the order

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) is erred in facts and law while passing the order ... dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) is erred in facts and law while passing the order

Tadisetti Murali Mohan, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 68Section 69

dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) is erred in facts and law while passing the order ... dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) is erred in facts and law while passing the order

Balaji Temple Trust, Srikakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 204/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sri Balaji Temple Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer Rajam, Srikakulam Exemption Ward [Pan : Aamts4258G] Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari,Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2023 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044994193(1) Dated 29.08.2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U//S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Public Religious Trust, Which Was Granted Registration U/S 12A On 10.07.2014. The 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari,ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(iia)

appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 3 I.T.A. No.204/Viz/2022, A.Y.2013-14 Sri Balaji Temple Trust, Srikakulam 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Ravindra Bharathi Educational Society, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.160/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2018-19) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Income Tax, Educational Society, Central Circle-1, D.No.23/812, Ravindra 3Rd Floor, Raj Kamal Complex, Bharathi Bhavan, Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Fathekhanpet, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh-524003. Pan: Aaaar 2715 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 21/Viz/2022 (आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.160/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2018-19 ) M/S. Ravindra Bharathi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Educational Society, Income Tax, D.No.23/812, Ravindra Bharathi Central Circle-1, Bhavan, Fathekhanpet, Nellore, 3Rd Floor, Raj Kamal Complex, Andhra Pradesh-524003. Lakshmipuram, Guntur. Pan: Aaaar 2715 E ( Cross Objector) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 23/05/2023 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 12ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts

Sudhakara Rao Potnuru, Srikakulam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Srikakulam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 133/VIZ/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.133/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sudhakara Rao Potnuru Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.13-128, Jogipeta Street Ward-1, Palakonda Road Narasannapeta Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Aelpp5479F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KVRK Sarma, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

I.T.A. No.133/Viz/2022, A.Y.2017-18 Sudhakara Rao Potnuru, Srikakulam 4. On being aggrieved with the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds : 1. The order of the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was arbitrary and quite injustice

Manepalli Ranadheer, Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

ITA 261/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

bank accounts after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. On being aggrieved, the assesseee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, by raising the following grunds : 1. The order of the learned Pr.Commissioner of Income-Tax is erroneous both on facts

Manepalli Ranadheer, Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

ITA 260/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

bank accounts after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. On being aggrieved, the assesseee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, by raising the following grunds : 1. The order of the learned Pr.Commissioner of Income-Tax is erroneous both on facts

Manepalli Ranadheer, Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

ITA 259/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

bank accounts after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. On being aggrieved, the assesseee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, by raising the following grunds : 1. The order of the learned Pr.Commissioner of Income-Tax is erroneous both on facts

Manepalli Ranadheer, Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

ITA 258/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

bank accounts after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. On being aggrieved, the assesseee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, by raising the following grunds : 1. The order of the learned Pr.Commissioner of Income-Tax is erroneous both on facts

Manepalli Ranadheer, Vijayawada vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees for the A

ITA 257/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Viz/2020 To 261/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 To 2015-16) Manepalli Ranadheer Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Ward-3(1) Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahwpr5952K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2021 To 21/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16) Late M.Pushpalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By L/R Manepalli Ranadheer Ward-3(1) D.No.28-15-4, Arundalpet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Auepm8062C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessees Against The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Pcit], Vijayawada Dated 19.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 To 2015-16 & The Order Dated 03.03.2020 For The A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2015-16. 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

bank accounts after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. On being aggrieved, the assesseee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, by raising the following grunds : 1. The order of the learned Pr.Commissioner of Income-Tax is erroneous both on facts