RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

condoning the delay and further erred for not adjudicating the issue on merits. 4. The learned Commissioner ought to have adjudicated the issues such as jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notice u/s 143(2) and the fact that the assessee deposited only Rs. 14,000/- during the demonetization

VEERABALLI NAGA BASI REDDY,KADAPA vs. ITO., WARD - 1, KADAPA.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.451/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Veeraballi Naga Basi Reddy, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward 1, Kadapa. Kadapa. Pan: Aszpr1589G (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31.12.2024

demonetization period as unexplained money of the assessee and also assessed income by estimating the income at 3% of the cash deposits of Rs.1,34,11,361/- in the bank account by treating the cash deposits as business receipts from the business of transport and estimated the income at 4% thereon. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4

KRISHNA FILLING STATION,KARIMNAGAR vs. ITO., WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

demonetization period for the financial year 2016-2017 relevant to assessment year 2017-2018. Considering all the aspects, the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened u/sec.147 of the Act after obtaining necessary approval from the Competent Authority and accordingly, a notice u/sec.148

METAL INDUSTRIES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD 6(3), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Metal Industries, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, B-44, Industrial Estate, Ward – 6(3), Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500018. Telangana. Pan : Aawfm8494Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hari Agarwal, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2024

condonation of delay. 16.3 The aforesaid order was against the principles of natural justice since it was passed before the date up to which the adjournment was granted.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee being the firm filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 18.09.2017 admitting income from Business at Rs.7

PASUPULETI VENKATESHWARA RAO PASUPLETI BALAKRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO-WARD-12(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that the Assessing Officer made the impugned addition of Rs.16 lakhs u/sec.69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee which was deposited by him in the Bank during the demonetization

AMBABHAVANI JETTEM,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHBUBNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

condone the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4 ITA.No.604/Hyd./2024 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and filed return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 on 03.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.10,90,820/-. The assessment has been

HARI GOPAL REDDY PINNPU ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the above-mentioned appeals of the assessees are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2013-14 Hari Gopal Reddy Pinnpu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(5), Pan: Apopp 0606 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Demi Realtors, Vs. Addl. Cit, Hyderabad. Range-14, Pan: Aaffd 9401 P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2010-11 Abdul Gaffar Khan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(2), Pan: Ancpk 5526 E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ashrafunnisa Begum, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(2)

condonation of No assessee No. Of delay Days 1. 466/H/17 M/s. Demi 1. … Realtors, 27 days 2. .. Hyderabad. 3. .. 4. .. 5. .. 6. No sooner than the appellate order cited above was received on 13/12/2016, I tried contacting my auditors M/s. S.P. Associates at Chennai for follow up action thereon. 7. I could reach then only sometime after Christmas during which

ASHRAFUNNISA BEGUM,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the above-mentioned appeals of the assessees are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2013-14 Hari Gopal Reddy Pinnpu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(5), Pan: Apopp 0606 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Demi Realtors, Vs. Addl. Cit, Hyderabad. Range-14, Pan: Aaffd 9401 P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2010-11 Abdul Gaffar Khan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(2), Pan: Ancpk 5526 E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ashrafunnisa Begum, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(2)

condonation of No assessee No. Of delay Days 1. 466/H/17 M/s. Demi 1. … Realtors, 27 days 2. .. Hyderabad. 3. .. 4. .. 5. .. 6. No sooner than the appellate order cited above was received on 13/12/2016, I tried contacting my auditors M/s. S.P. Associates at Chennai for follow up action thereon. 7. I could reach then only sometime after Christmas during which

DEMI REALTORS, HYDERABAD,CHENNAI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-14, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the above-mentioned appeals of the assessees are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2013-14 Hari Gopal Reddy Pinnpu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(5), Pan: Apopp 0606 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Demi Realtors, Vs. Addl. Cit, Hyderabad. Range-14, Pan: Aaffd 9401 P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2010-11 Abdul Gaffar Khan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(2), Pan: Ancpk 5526 E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ashrafunnisa Begum, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(2)

condonation of No assessee No. Of delay Days 1. 466/H/17 M/s. Demi 1. … Realtors, 27 days 2. .. Hyderabad. 3. .. 4. .. 5. .. 6. No sooner than the appellate order cited above was received on 13/12/2016, I tried contacting my auditors M/s. S.P. Associates at Chennai for follow up action thereon. 7. I could reach then only sometime after Christmas during which

ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the above-mentioned appeals of the assessees are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year:2013-14 Hari Gopal Reddy Pinnpu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(5), Pan: Apopp 0606 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Demi Realtors, Vs. Addl. Cit, Hyderabad. Range-14, Pan: Aaffd 9401 P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2010-11 Abdul Gaffar Khan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(2), Pan: Ancpk 5526 E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ashrafunnisa Begum, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(2)

condonation of No assessee No. Of delay Days 1. 466/H/17 M/s. Demi 1. … Realtors, 27 days 2. .. Hyderabad. 3. .. 4. .. 5. .. 6. No sooner than the appellate order cited above was received on 13/12/2016, I tried contacting my auditors M/s. S.P. Associates at Chennai for follow up action thereon. 7. I could reach then only sometime after Christmas during which

LINGANNAGARI PARINITHA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

condone the delay of 276 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and did not file her return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018 under consideration. As 4 ITA.No.990/Hyd./2025 per the information available with

SRINIVAS ARRA,KARIMNAGAR vs. ITO., WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1184/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Srinivas Arra, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Karimnagar. Pan: Aespa4907Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Vinod, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 08.11.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2017-18 Was Filed On 30.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,80,730/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 27.09.2021 Passed U/S.147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The

demonetization period of Rs.25,03,554/- as unexplained money as the assessee failed to explain the sources of cash deposits with supporting evidences. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in limine. 4. Being aggrieved

SRINIVASARAO KOLASANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.433/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Srinivasa Rao Kolasani, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward 9(1), Pan: Ahwpk6333P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Snsr Chinmai, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.10.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2017-18 Was Filed On 15.02.2019 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,76,020/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 21.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The

demonetization period of Rs.30,54,255/- as unexplained money as the assessee failed to explain the sources of cash deposits with supporting evidences. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in limine. 4. Being aggrieved

SAI PRASANTHI KODALI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Sai Prasanthi Kodali, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Cimpk9611F.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31.07.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.4,25,730/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS

SRI DURGA AUTO MOTIVES,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

condoned the delay, admit the appeal and adjudicate the appeal on merits, instead of dismissing the same on the ground of delay. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information, viz., (i) that the assessee firm during the demonetization

VENKATA SUBBA REDDY VENNAPUSA,KADAPA vs. ITO, WARD-1, CUDDAPAH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1022/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Venkata Subba Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Vennapusa, Kadapa Ward 1 Pan:Aqcpv2508C Kadapa (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order

condonation of delay which reads as under: ““The appellant is an individual doing Business in Mines the assessment year under consideration, during demonetization

JITHENDER REDDY POLU,NALGONDA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SURYAPET

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1493/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jithender Reddy Polu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nalgonda. Ward-1, Pan:Ahlpp6612R Suryapet. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Nagaraju, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/01/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 05/12/2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 10. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that as the assessee depsite having been afforded sufficient opportunity by the AO had failed to substantiate based on supporting documentary evidence the cash deposits/credits aggregating to Rs.76,98,151/- made in his bank accounts during the subject year

SUJALA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,NANDYAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

condonation of delay involved in filing of the appeal. 14. The assessee company has filed before us an application seeking admission of certain documents as additional evidence, as under: a. Cash sales details for Rs. 1.39 Crs. b. Summary of cash deposits [Rs. 8.65 Crs] and withdrawals from various banks [Rs. 12.59] c. Bank statements related to 8 Banks