DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

1,54,36,109 + Rs.5,19,584) (including\ntransport charges)) for the impugned assessment year. Ld. DR invited our\nattention to the observations of the Ld. AO and argued that the vehicles as per\nthe vehicle numbers provided in the E-Way bills does not have the capacity to\ntransport the quantity of material as mentioned in the invoice

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

1,54,36,109 + Rs.5,19,584) (including\ntransport charges)) for the impugned assessment year. Ld. DR invited our\nattention to the observations of the Ld. AO and argued that the vehicles as per\nthe vehicle numbers provided in the E-Way bills does not have the capacity to\ntransport the quantity of material as mentioned in the invoice

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

1,54,36,109 + Rs.5,19,584) (including\ntransport charges)) for the impugned assessment year. Ld. DR invited our\nattention to the observations of the Ld. AO and argued that the vehicles as per\nthe vehicle numbers provided in the E-Way bills does not have the capacity to\ntransport the quantity of material as mentioned in the invoice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

bogus purchases thereby confirmed the deletion of balance of\nRs.18,44,787/-. The Ld. CIT(A), thus partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.\n11. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal\nbefore us by raising following grounds of appeal: .\n"1.\nThe order of the Ld.ClT(A) is erroneous both

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

1,54,36,109 + Rs.5,19,584) (including\ntransport charges)) for the impugned assessment year. Ld. DR invited our\nattention to the observations of the Ld. AO and argued that the vehicles as per\nthe vehicle numbers provided in the E-Way bills does not have the capacity to\ntransport the quantity of material as mentioned in the invoice

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

1,54,36,109 + Rs.5,19,584) (including\ntransport charges)) for the impugned assessment year. Ld. DR invited our\nattention to the observations of the Ld. AO and argued that the vehicles as per\nthe vehicle numbers provided in the E-Way bills does not have the capacity to\ntransport the quantity of material as mentioned in the invoice

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

E R PER BENCH: The captioned appeals in IT(SS)A No. 05 to 09/Viz/2025 are filed by the Revenue for the AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13 and the assessee has filed cross appeals in ITA No. 140 to 144/Viz/2025 for the AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

E R PER BENCH: The captioned appeals in IT(SS)A No. 05 to 09/Viz/2025 are filed by the Revenue for the AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13 and the assessee has filed cross appeals in ITA No. 140 to 144/Viz/2025 for the AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

E R PER BENCH: The captioned appeals in IT(SS)A No. 05 to 09/Viz/2025 are filed by the Revenue for the AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13 and the assessee has filed cross appeals in ITA No. 140 to 144/Viz/2025 for the AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

E R PER BENCH: The captioned appeals in IT(SS)A No. 05 to 09/Viz/2025 are filed by the Revenue for the AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13 and the assessee has filed cross appeals in ITA No. 140 to 144/Viz/2025 for the AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

E R PER BENCH: The captioned appeals in IT(SS)A No. 05 to 09/Viz/2025 are filed by the Revenue for the AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13 and the assessee has filed cross appeals in ITA No. 140 to 144/Viz/2025 for the AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

1,54,36,109 + Rs.5,19,584) (including\ntransport charges)) for the impugned assessment year. Ld. DR invited our\nattention to the observations of the Ld. AO and argued that the vehicles as per\nthe vehicle numbers provided in the E-Way bills does not have the capacity to\ntransport the quantity of material as mentioned in the invoice

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following