SOMIREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1505/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Somireddy Sudhakar The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ibrahimpatnam Vs. Ward-9(1), Pin -501 506. R R Dist. Hyderabad. Pan Bghps3108R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. Ar

50,000/- for sale of immovable property. This should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed MOHAN KUMAR R RANGE-9, HYDERABAD Addl. Commr. of Income Tax, Range-9, Hyderabad.” 6. Thus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there was no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no assessment proceedings

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld.AR further contended that penalty proceedings are different from assessment proceedings and the assessee can always make fresh arguments for cancellation of penalty. 6. Per contra, ld.DR has drawn our attention to the order passed by ld.CIT(A) wherein it was held as under : 5.2. The only ground that requires to be adjudicated here

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld.AR further contended that penalty proceedings are different from assessment proceedings and the assessee can always make fresh arguments for cancellation of penalty. 6. Per contra, ld.DR has drawn our attention to the order passed by ld.CIT(A) wherein it was held as under : 5.2. The only ground that requires to be adjudicated here

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

50,000/- for sale of immovable property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.”\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

50,000/- for sale of immovable property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.\"\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

50,000/- for sale of immovable property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.\"\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

50,000/- for sale of immovable property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.”\n6.\nThus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that there\nwas no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were no\nassessment proceedings

KESIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

50,000/- for sale of immovable property.\nThis should be paid as per demand notice u/s. 156 enclosed\nSd/-MOHAN KUMAR R\nRANGE-9, HYDERABAD\nAddl. Commr. of Income Tax,\nRange-9, Hyderabad.”\n6. Thus, it is clear from the impugned order u/sec.271D that\nthere was no Reference by the Assessing Officer and also there were\nno assessment proceedings

GUNTI NAVEEN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

50,000/- quantified by the AO quoted in the assessment order, which was accepted by the AO and no further addition was made by the AO and initiated penalty proceedings u/s Sec.271(1)(c) rws Explanation 5A. For ready reference, we reproduce explanation 5A to section 271

GUNTI PRASAD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

50,000/- quantified by the AO quoted in the assessment order, which was accepted by the AO and no further addition was made by the AO and initiated penalty proceedings u/s Sec.271(1)(c) rws Explanation 5A. For ready reference, we reproduce explanation 5A to section 271

GUNTI PRASAD (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

50,000/- quantified by the AO quoted in the assessment order, which was accepted by the AO and no further addition was made by the AO and initiated penalty proceedings u/s Sec.271(1)(c) rws Explanation 5A. For ready reference, we reproduce explanation 5A to section 271

GUNTI PRASAD ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

50,000/- quantified by the AO quoted in the assessment order, which was accepted by the AO and no further addition was made by the AO and initiated penalty proceedings u/s Sec.271(1)(c) rws Explanation 5A. For ready reference, we reproduce explanation 5A to section 271

GUNTI ASHWIN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

50,000/- quantified by the AO quoted in the assessment order, which was accepted by the AO and no further addition was made by the AO and initiated penalty proceedings u/s Sec.271(1)(c) rws Explanation 5A. For ready reference, we reproduce explanation 5A to section 271

GUNTI ANIL KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

50,000/- quantified by the AO quoted in the assessment order, which was accepted by the AO and no further addition was made by the AO and initiated penalty proceedings u/s Sec.271(1)(c) rws Explanation 5A. For ready reference, we reproduce explanation 5A to section 271

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. BAPU REDDY JALA , NIZAMABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Vs. Shri Bapu Reddy Jala Hyderabad Nizamabad Pan:Aabci9355A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/06/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: "1. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred Both In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Granting Relief To The Assessee. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law By Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 153A Of The It Act, 1961 Dated 29.09.2021 Stating That The Sum Of Rs.75,00,000/- Not To Be Treated As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cita) Erred In Law By Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 271D Of The It Act, 1961 Dated 01.06.2021

50 b) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Standard Brands Ltd (2006) 155 Taxman 383. c) Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of PCIT vs. Akash Infra-com Projects (P) Ltd (2022) 42 Taxmann.com 281. d) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panchsheel Owners Associations

BHAGAWAN SRI BALASAIBABA CENTRAL TRUST,KURNOOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 Bhagawan Sri Balasaibaba Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Central Trust, Sri Nilayam Fort, Tirupati. Andhra Pradesh. Kurnool. Pan : Aaatb3818R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2024

50,00,000/- did not materialize, the amount of Rs.3,32,00,000/- given as advance was retuned back on various dates and the same was deposited in the bank account of the assessee and hence, provisions of Section 269SS of the Act cannot be applicable. To support his case, ld.AR relied upon the decision of jurisdictional High Court

VIJAYAWADA TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is\nOrder pronounced in the Open Court on 6th February, 2026

penalty under section\n271(1)(c) of the Act.\n7.\nWe have carefully considered the rival submissions\nand perused the material available on record. We have also gone\nthrough page no. 8 of the reassessment order dated 05.12.2019\npassed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) read with section 147\nof the Act, the relevant portion of which

D S R INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

D S R INFRASTRUCTUREPRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply