BARIGALA SAROJA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit dated 24/01/2025 and explained the reasons for such delay. For the sake of immediate reference, the contents of the said affidavit are extracted herein below: "1.......

condone the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 3 Barigala Saroja vs. ITO 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee an individual. On verification of the AIMS Module of ITBA, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee made substantial cash deposits during

GANESH KUMAR PAIDI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 7. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.07.2017, declaring an income of Rs. 7,21,890/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny of assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. 8. During the course of assessment

SITARAMA RAJU PENUMATSA,JARAJAPETA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.183/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sitarama Raju Penumatsa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-363-1443, Santhoshimatha Ward-2, Nagar, Jarajapeta, Nellimarla, Vizianagaram. Vizianagaram District-535217, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Awfpp2521A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

demonetization period, the Ld. AO treated the entire cash deposits as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and added to the same to the total income of the assessee and taxed the same U/s. 115BBE of the Act @ 60% of the Tax. Thus, the Ld. AO completed the assessment U/s. 144 of the Act and assessed the total income

SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Srilakshmi Devireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5) D.No. 9-58, Loyabata Road Nunna, Vijayawada – 521212 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bjupd8440D] Vijayawada करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Per Ravish Sood, Jm: आदेश /Order The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 12.11.2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 03.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

demonetization period as compared to the returned income”. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O vide his notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 15.02.2019 and 09.11.2019, called upon the assessee to furnish a copy of her bank account for the subject year along with the source of the cash deposits made

CHAITANYA LEARNING ZONE PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअऩीऱसं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2021 (ननधधारणवषा/ Assessment Year :2017-18) M/S. Chaitanya Learning Zone Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt Ltd., Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaecc 6869 J (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri Ss Sarat Chandra, Advocate प्रत्यधथीकीओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasadarao, Sr. Ar

demonetization period aggregating to Rs. 21,77,500/-. The Ld. AO further noted on analysis of three bank accounts of the assesseeie., ICICI Bank, SBI and Indusind Bank, there are total credits aggregating to Rs. 1,84,09,396/-. As there was no response from the assessee, the Ld. AO completed the assessment U/s. 144 of the Act vide

THE ANDHRA PRADESH MERCANTILE MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE THRIFT&CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.104/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Andhra Pradesh Mercantile Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift Ward-1(1) & Credit Society Limited, Vijayawada. D.No. 11-13-1, Subbarammayya Street, Janda Chettu Road, Vijayawada – 520001. Pan: Aadat 6013 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 26/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

demonetization period is nothing but unexplained money and from undisclosed sources and therefore the same was not offered for taxation. Further, the Ld. AO also observed that the assesee has failed to prove its normal business activities. Accordingly, the Ld.AO treated the cash deposits amounting to Rs. 88,34,98,500/- as unexplained money

BODA RAMASATYANARAYANA,DRAKSHARAMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

demonetization period amounting to Rs. 16.35 lacs (supra), held the balance amount of Rs. 2,07,38,000/- as the turnover of the assessee from his business of purchase/sale of HSD, MS and lubricants. Accordingly, the A.O estimated the business income on the aforementioned business turnover of Rs. 2,07,38,000/- @ 8% and made a consequential addition of Rs.16

SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA STONE CRUSHERS,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

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

delay is condoned. 5. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - Page No. 2 I.T.A. No.495/VIZ/2025 Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Stone Crushers “1. The order of the Learned Assessing Officer (AO), as upheld by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"], is erroneous in law and on the facts of the case

SUDHEER CHAMARTHI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.216/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Sudheer Chamarthi Vs. Income Tax Officer 12-17-36/1, Somuvari Street Ward-1(1) Kothapet Guntur Guntur [Pan : Axnpc8454A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021- 22/1041354665(1) Dated 23.03.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2017-18 With The Delay Of 163 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit, Submitting That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Was Uploaded In E-Filing Portal & It Was Not Served Physically. The Assessee Submitted That All His Income Tax Matters Were Entrusted To A Chartered Accountant, Who Did

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deriving income from other sources, had filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 through e-filing on 07.08.2017, declaring total income at Rs.3,01,990/-. The return of income was processed

KOMPELLA RAMA SUBRAHMANYA SARMA,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 22/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kompella Rama Subrahmanya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sarma, Ward-2, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Bqzpk 4682 G (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

demonetization period of Rs. 15,26,000/- as unexplained money U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and determined the total income at Rs. 19,64,360/- in the assessment order passed on 30/11/2019. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal belatedly before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 84 days

SRIDHAR YARLAGADDA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.311/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sridhar Yarlagadda, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), Pan: Abdpy4072 G Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condoned the delay in filing the appeal for the reasons stated therein, ought to have admitted the appeal and disposed off on merits. 2. Your Appellant submits that the entire cash deposited in the bank during the demonetization

VEERABHADRA RAO MOLLETI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Veerabhadra Rao Molleti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Aghpm 1625 Q Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Ramprasad Tnssjms, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 31/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

condone the delay of 90 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, having income from ‘salary’ filed his original return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 8/8/2017 declaring an income of Rs. 3,72,970/-. The case

ALURI YOGENDRA KUMAR L/R OF LATE ALURI MADHUSUDHANA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), GUNTUR

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

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

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. On the basis of information received that the assessee had deposited cash during the demonetization

SRI SURYA NARAYANA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAMS,ARASAVALLI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. 121/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Surya Narayana Swamy Vari Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Devasthanams, Of Income Tax, Arasavalli, Exemption Circle, Srikakulam District. Vijayawada. Pan: Aaajs0913Q (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

demonetization and (ii) Form-10 filed after due date and large amount accumulated or set apart U/s. 11(2). On verification of the information submitted by the assessee, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has not filed Form-10 and Form-9A and has accumulated the surplus amount of Rs.1,21,96,713/- as per the provisions of section

RUTH MAMIDI,WEST GODAVARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.03/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mrs. Ruth Mamidi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 3-45 Ananthapalli, Ward-1, Ramalayam Veedhi, Nallajerla Tadepalligudem, Mandal, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh-534101. Andhra Pradesh – 534111. Pan: Cxmpm 2888 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 17/07/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 159 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of data analytics and information gathered during the phase of online verification under ‘Operation Clear Money’, the Income Tax Department gathered a list of assessees who had deposited

BAJI SHAIK,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.31/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Baji Shaik Vs. Income Tax Officer 11/200-1 Near Fish Market Ward-3(1) Nuzvid, Eluru Vijayawada [Pan : Cjgps5389M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed his return of income after completion of the relevant A.Y.2017-18, admitting total income of Rs.2,93,680/- under the head “other sources”. As the assessee had filed his return of income belatedly after

NO H 1043 BHUJABALAPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

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

Bench: The Tribunal. The Petitioner/Appellant Society Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Wherein It Was Submitted That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Was Sent To The Email Of Its Then Ar, Ca B.V. Rao, Instead Of Its Email "Krishnapacs085@Gmail.Com," As Had Been Requested By It. The Appellant Society Came To Know Of The Order Only When Itd Officials Called Upon It To Pay The Tax Arrears. It Further Submitted That, Due To The Above Circumstances Beyond Its Control & Prayed That The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal May Please Be Condoned In The Interest Of Justice & That The Appeal Be Decided On Merits.

condone the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The appellant/assessee is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee has not furnished its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on or before the due date

VOBILISETTY SUBBALAKSHMI L/R OF LATE VOBILISETTY VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.275/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt.Vobilisetty Subbalakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Vobilisetty Venkata Ward-1(1) Satyanarayana Murthy Rajahmundry D.No.2-40-14, Alcot Garden Rajahmundry [Pan : Acxpv6079M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in purchase and sale of rice and its bye-products on wholesale and retail basis under the name and style of M/s Rama Rice & General Stores, Rajahmundry. It was found from AMIS data in ITBA that

SANJUKTA VARANASI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.225/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1(3) Sanjukta Varanasi D.No. 49-46-4/30 Income Tax Office Ramakrishna Nagar Pratyakshakar Bhavan Near Jaggarao Bridge Mvp Double Road Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam – 530017 Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afspv9008E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 166 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee during the demonetization