BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

delay. Once the condonation is rejected, the appeal become non-est and the Ld.CIT(A) should not have proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. Even on merits, the following is submitted for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench. In respect of status of assessment of companies/shareholders who contributed the share capital of Rs, 311 crores

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

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and determined her income at Rs.27,94,010/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay of 01 year and 07 months, therefore, the CIT(A) declined to condone

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)

unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the appeal on 22.07.2025 against the assessment order dated 01.12.2023 with a delay of more than 18 months. The assessee filed a petition for condonation

STAR ORGANIC FOODS INC,NELLORE vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-1, NELLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

condoning the huge delay, the appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed as un-admitted. 7. We have heard both the parties and considered the relevant affidavit to filed by the assessee for explaining the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. For better understanding of the issue, it is relevant to reproduce the contents

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

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 26.12.2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 32,72,415/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay

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

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 26.12.2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 32,72,415/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay

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

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated 26.12.2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 32,72,415/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay

BABUGARI KAREEM BASHA,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDYAL

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are dismissed mutatis mutandis for both the A

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the A.O., the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with the delay and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, ex-parte as the assessee failed to show any sufficient cause u/s 249(3) of the Act for the delay

BABUGARI KAREEM BASHA,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDYAL

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are dismissed\nmutatis mutandis for both the A

unexplained money u/s 69A\nof the Act.\n3.\nAggrieved by the order passed by the A.O., the assessee filed\nan appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with the delay and the Ld.CIT(A)\ndismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, ex-parte as the\nassessee failed to show any sufficient cause u/s 249(3) of the Act\nfor the delay

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

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.4,02,341/- as undisclosed

LAXMI VENKATESHWARA AUTO FINANCE,NALGONDA vs. ITO., WARD-1, NALGONDA

Bench: Us:

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O., based on his aforesaid deliberations, made an addition u/s 69A of Rs. 1,27,22,000/- 4 Laxmi Venkateswara Auto Finance. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee firm had delayed the filing of the appeal before

MANDADI VIJAYA LAKSHMI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

Money\", observed that though the assessee had made\ncash deposits of Rs.33,08,717/- in her bank account during the period\nrelevant to Assessment Year: 2017-18, which comprised of cash\ndeposits of Rs.23,33,500/- made during the demonetisation period, i.e.,\n09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016, but had not filed her return of income, issued\nnotices issued under section

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

KONDAL REDDY ANUMULA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred

SRK INFRACON (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-3(3), HYDERABADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

money in the financial year 2012-13 and the same is converted into reserves and surplus by allotting shares, therefore, erred in passing an order u/s 263 assuming that the order u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial. 5. The learned Pr. Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings collected

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon

BHUPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

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

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal or petition cannot be allowed. In the present case, it is a dispute between the State in respect of a tax liability which is civil in nature and the same cannot be equated with the dispute between two parties and therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon