PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

4 years 3 months and 23 days. Since the assessee filed the appeal without explaining the delay, in our considered view, there is no errors in the reason given by the Ld. CIT (A) to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee without condonation of delay. 14. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the decision

ADARSH MEDICAL HALL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adarsh Medical Hall Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-7(1) [Pan :Aagfa5186R] Hyderabad

condone delay in filing the appeal and admit appeal for disposal in the interest of justice. 3 Adarsh Medical Hall 5. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of data analytics and information gathered during the phase of online verification under ‘Operation Clean Money’, the Income Tax Department gathered a list of assessees, who had deposited

KUMUD BAJAJ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.782/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kumud Bajaj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Acepb3914A Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. Ar

4 Kumud Bajaj vs. ITO condonation of the delay involved in filing of the present appeal accompanied with an affidavit of the assessee, dated 11/10/2025. The Ld.AR submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal had crept in because of the serious medical ill health of the assessee who during the relevant period, i.e., December, 2024 to 30/04/2025

VENGALA RAO MADALA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.193/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Vengala Rao Madala, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-11(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aqnpm6758J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 22/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Vengala Rao Madala (“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 04.10.2023 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That There Is A Delay Of 403 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A

delay of 403 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.193/Hyd/2025 5 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual who filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order of the Learned Assessing Officer

VASAVI CLUB,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राि, माननीय उपाध्यक्ष एिं श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.994/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vasavi Club, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward -11(1), Hyderabad. PAN : AACAV2590D (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का

MALIREDDI SRINATH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HDYERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

249(3) of the Act. The same is accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the case. 3. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri Y. V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.A. submitted that

KARIMNAGAR MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

b) and (c) of “Form\n3CD\" of the subject year, revealed that no quantitative particulars of\nthe principal items of goods traded or raw material as well as finished\ngoods were therein provided. Although the assessee company was\ndirected to submit the requisite information along with the bifurcation\nof closing stock and product stock register, but it failed to file

SRINIVAS GADHE,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 650/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Srinivas Gadhe Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward 1 Pan:Aekpg3812L Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Smt. S Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri G. V P Pavan Kumar,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/07/2024 आदेश/Order

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the A.Y 2017- 18. Notice u/s 14291) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 14.03.2018 was issued and called upon the assessee to furnish

REVANTH REDDY ANUMALA,BANJARA HILLS vs. A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the Id. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 10 ITA.No.650/Hyd./2023 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before

WARANGAL CLUB,HANAMKONDA vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

condone 3 ITA.No.109/Hyd./2025 the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant viz., “Warangal Club” has not filed it's return of income for the assessment year 2015-2016. As per the information available with the Department, the appellant has deposited

ARYA VYSYA TRUST,VIKARABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1, VIKARABAD

Bench: Us:

B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad "ी मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सद"य एवं "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय "या"यक सद"य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER (Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.215/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year:2019-20) Arya Vysya Trust, VS. Income Tax Officer, Vikarabad. Ward-1, PAN: AAFTA7055G Vikarabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

4. Per contra, learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to Para 6 to 6.3 to the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC which reads as under: “6 In respect of the request for the condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b