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

50C of the Act. Further, as per the sale deed, the assessee is having a share of 1/4th of the property, as such the assessee’s share in the sale proceeds is 1/4th of the property which works out to Rs.8,87,500/-and the corresponding market value for the purpose of stamp duty is Rs.20

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

50C of the Act. Further, as per the sale deed, the assessee is having a share of 1/4th of the property, as such the assessee’s share in the sale proceeds is 1/4th of the property which works out to Rs.8,87,500/-and the corresponding market value for the purpose of stamp duty is Rs.20

SURESH KUMAR BACHIRAJU,KUKATPALLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.177/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Suresh Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Bachiraju, Ward 11(1) Kukatapally Hyderabad Pan:Afkpb6727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Kiran Manohar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/04/2024

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.30,36,054/-. 6. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the difference arose because of application of section 50C

SURESH KUMAR BACHIRAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -11(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.496 & 497/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suresh Kumar Bachiraju, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward – 11(5), Hyderabad. Pan : Afkpb6727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri S. Rama Rao. Respondent By : Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T.Act.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a real estate agent, filed his return of income on 07.12.2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income at Rs.3,18,750/- under the head “Income from other sources’ and claiming short term capital loss of Rs.3

SURESH KUMAR BACHIRAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD -11(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.496 & 497/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suresh Kumar Bachiraju, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward – 11(5), Hyderabad. Pan : Afkpb6727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri S. Rama Rao. Respondent By : Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the I.T.Act.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a real estate agent, filed his return of income on 07.12.2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income at Rs.3,18,750/- under the head “Income from other sources’ and claiming short term capital loss of Rs.3

NALAMATI SEA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Nalamati Sea Foods (P) Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 16(2) Pan: Aabcn1440K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri E.S. Ranganath, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/01/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. We find the assessee did not appear before the CIT (A)-NFAC for which the learned CIT (A)-NFAC has confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. We find the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the quantum proceedings has deleted

ANANTH VASUDEV NAIK ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5) , HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08 Anant Vasudeo Naik, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(5), Pan : Abgpn5360D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2007-08 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 01.06.2018 In Appeal No.10034/17-18/B2 Cit(A)-6, Involving Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’]. Heard Both Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice At The Outset That Assessee’S Instant Appeal Suffers From 514 Days Of Delay In Filing. Learned Counsel Submitted That Assessee Is Old Aged Person & Not At All Conversed With E-Proceedings & Could Not Track The Messages, Which Caused The Impugned Delay In Filing Of The Instant Appeal. The Same Are Unrebutted From The Revenue’S Side During The Course Of Hearing. Case Law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors 1987 Air 1353 (Sc) & University Of Delhi Vs. Union Of India, Civl Appeal No.9488 & 9489/2019 Dt.17.12.2019, Hold That Such A Delay; Supported By Cogent Reasons, Deserves To Be Condoned So As To Make Way Of The Cause Of Substantial Justice. We Accordingly Hold That Assessee’S Impugned Delay Of 514 Days Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate. The Same Stands Condoned. Case Is Now Taken Up For Adjudication On Merits Therefore.

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both parties. Case file perused. 2. We notice at the outset that assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 514 days of delay in filing. Learned counsel submitted that assessee is old aged person and not at all conversed with e-proceedings and could not track

LAKSHMI LINGINENI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act [Act] to an extent of Rs. 70,324/- levied on the reason that assessee has not offered capital gains. :- 2 -: I.T.A. No. 2208/Hyd/2017 2. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is an individual and has no other sources of income and not an assessee on record. On the basis