VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals i

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

275/- was worked out as follows: 38 ITA.Nos.1870 to 1875/Hyd./2025 20. This apportionment of the unaccounted income on the part of the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings for year-wise and entity-wise and specifically for the assessee M/s. Ace Tyres (P) Ltd is not matching with the details as given by the Assessing Officer while recording

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals i

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1870 To 1875/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2014-2015 To 2019-2020 Vilas Polymer Private The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Vs. Pin – 500 090 Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Aaacv9854A Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca M V Prasad राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18.02.2026 आदेश/Order

275/- was worked out as follows: 38 ITA.Nos.1870 to 1875/Hyd./2025 20. This apportionment of the unaccounted income on the part of the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings for year-wise and entity-wise and specifically for the assessee M/s. Ace Tyres (P) Ltd is not matching with the details as given by the Assessing Officer while recording

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1894/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Exel Rubber (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aaace4495J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 Hyderabad, Dated 11/10/2025 For The A.Y 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

275/- was worked out as follows: 20. This apportionment of the unaccounted income on the part of the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings for year-wise and entity-wise and specifically for the assessee M/s. Ace Tyres (P) Ltd is not matching with the details as given by the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons for reopening

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI vs. PALLAM REDDY SREELAKSHMI, TIRUPATI

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee opportunity of hearing. Opportunity that is to be given to the assessee should be a meaningful one and not a farce. Notice

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI vs. PALAKALA GUNASEKHAR, TIRUPATI

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee opportunity of hearing. Opportunity that is to be given to the assessee should be a meaningful one and not a farce. Notice

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

275\n20. This apportionment of the unaccounted income on\nthe part of the Assessing Officer during the assessment\nproceedings for year-wise and entity-wise and specifically for the\nassessee M/s. Ace Tyres (P) Ltd is not matching with the details\nas given by the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons for\nreopening of the assessment in case

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

275\n20.\nThis apportionment of the unaccounted income on\nthe part of the Assessing Officer during the assessment\nproceedings for year-wise and entity-wise and specifically for the\nassessee M/s. Ace Tyres (P) Ltd is not matching with the details\nas given by the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons for\nreopening of the assessment in case

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

275\n\n20.\nThis apportionment of the unaccounted income on\nthe part of the Assessing Officer during the assessment\n\nproceedings for year-wise and entity-wise and specifically for the\nassessee M/s. Ace Tyres (P) Ltd is not matching with the details\nas given by the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons for\nreopening of the assessment in case

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

275\n\n20.\nThis apportionment of the unaccounted income on\nthe part of the Assessing Officer during the assessment\n\nproceedings for year-wise and entity-wise and specifically for the\nassessee M/s. Ace Tyres (P) Ltd is not matching with the details\nas given by the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons for\nreopening of the assessment in case

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

275\n\n20.\nThis apportionment of the unaccounted income on the\npart of the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings\nfor year-wise and entity-wise and specifically for the assessee\nM/s. Ace Tyres (P) Ltd is not matching with the details as given by\nthe Assessing Officer while recording the reasons for reopening of\nthe assessment in case

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

275\n\nPage 35 of 78\n\n20.\nThis apportionment of the unaccounted income on the\npart of the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings\nfor year-wise and entity-wise and specifically for the assessee\nM/s. Ace Tyres (P) Ltd is not matching with the details as given by\nthe Assessing Officer while recording the reasons for reopening

SHIV KUMAR MITTAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2009-10 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Acipm 3813 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vikash Modi Revenue By: Smt. V. Aparna Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is An Appeal Of The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 Against The Order Of Cit(A) – 8, Hyderabad, Dated, 16/02/2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Had Sold A Property Situated At Kondapur Grampanchayat, Serilingampally Mandal, Rr District Vide Sale Deed No. 4100/2008 Dated 5Th June, 2008 For A Consideration Of Rs. 15,48,000/-, Whereas The Guideline Value Of The Property As Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs. 50,56,000/-. Since The Assessee Did Not Offer Any Capital Gains On This Transaction To Tax, Ao Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 On 24/03/2016, Which Was Served On The Assessee By Way Of Affixture At The Last Known Address & Thereafter Notice U/S 142(1) Was Also Issued On 09/05/2016. Since There Was No Reply From The Assessee, A 2 I.T.A. No. 633/Hyd/18 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Hyd..

c: CIT Vs Dr Ala Prakash (IT Appeal no 551 of 2009 September 12 2013 High court of Allahabad - It has been held that since the notice was not issued on the known address of the assessee and there being no valid evidence of proper service of this notice, the impugned order passed by the Assessing officer becomes

RAMDEV MUNADHDA,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD -1, WARANGAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

275\n(Karnataka); and (v). Ratan Bej Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax\n(2024) 467 ITR 288 (Jharkhand).\nPer Contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short, “DR\")\nsubmitted that as the AO at the stage of initiating the proceedings under Section\n147 of the Act was in possession of material which revealed that the income of\nthe assessee chargeable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. INDU PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed therefore

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

275] (SC); as considered in Jagati Publications Ltd. Vs. President (2015) [377 ITR 31] (Bombay) that a Special Bench’s constitution has to be in light of the foregoing regulation or by the hon’ble President, ITAT as per the relevant facts and circumstances of each and every case which nowhere exist as the assessee itself has not even preferred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. INDU PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed therefore

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

275] (SC); as considered in Jagati Publications Ltd. Vs. President (2015) [377 ITR 31] (Bombay) that a Special Bench’s constitution has to be in light of the foregoing regulation or by the hon’ble President, ITAT as per the relevant facts and circumstances of each and every case which nowhere exist as the assessee itself has not even preferred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. INDU PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed therefore

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

275] (SC); as considered in Jagati Publications Ltd. Vs. President (2015) [377 ITR 31] (Bombay) that a Special Bench’s constitution has to be in light of the foregoing regulation or by the hon’ble President, ITAT as per the relevant facts and circumstances of each and every case which nowhere exist as the assessee itself has not even preferred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. INDU PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed therefore

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

275] (SC); as considered in Jagati Publications Ltd. Vs. President (2015) [377 ITR 31] (Bombay) that a Special Bench’s constitution has to be in light of the foregoing regulation or by the hon’ble President, ITAT as per the relevant facts and circumstances of each and every case which nowhere exist as the assessee itself has not even preferred

PULLALAREVU ANUSHA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

c) In respect of Villa No 63 (ITA No. 4/Hyd/2023) the amount was mentioned as Zero in all the columns as per the seized document No Pg No.01 of A/KMR/RES/01 (Page No.13). However, in the document numbered as Pg No.07 of A/KMR/OFF/07 (Page No.14) it was mentioned under Agree value column 420 and under other columns Zero. However, the assessing

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

c) In respect of Villa No 63 (ITA No. 4/Hyd/2023) the amount was mentioned as Zero in all the columns as per the seized document No Pg No.01 of A/KMR/RES/01 (Page No.13). However, in the document numbered as Pg No.07 of A/KMR/OFF/07 (Page No.14) it was mentioned under Agree value column 420 and under other columns Zero. However, the assessing