SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES AND FARMLANDS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) had recorded a categorical finding in light of the affidavit filed by the assessee along with the petition filed for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, and noticed that, the reasons given by the assessee do not come under ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the huge delay

SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES AND FARMLANDS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) had recorded a categorical finding in light of the affidavit filed by the assessee along with the petition filed for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, and noticed that, the reasons given by the assessee do not come under ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the huge delay

ADIMULAM SATYANARAYANA PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

1) of the Act, dated 29/11/2019 5 Adimulam Satyanarayana Proprietor vs. ITO to furnish a copy of the letter wherein the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatnam had condoned the delay and allowed him to file his return of income under section 139(4) r.w.s 119(2)(b) of the Act for the subject year, but the assessee failed

OMMI SANDEEP,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

condone the delay of 24 days\nPage No. 2\nin filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on\nmerits in the following paragraphs.\n4.\nThe only issue to be adjudicated in the above cited appeal is whether the\nAppellant Cooperative Society is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)\nof the Act, when

AUDREY BERNICE ROY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

condone the delay Page. No 10 I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy and dispose of the appeal on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. Per contra, Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. DR”) supported the order of the CIT(A). The Ld. DR submitted that as the delay

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

condone the delay of 11 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and we proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the Revenue has raised the identical grounds, we shall take up ITA No. 226/Viz/2022 as a lead appeal. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the AY 2018-19. “1. The order

GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

condone the delay of 11 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and we proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the Revenue has raised the identical grounds, we shall take up ITA No. 226/Viz/2022 as a lead appeal. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the AY 2018-19. “1. The order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

condone the delay of 11 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and we proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the Revenue has raised the identical grounds, we shall take up ITA No. 226/Viz/2022 as a lead appeal. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the AY 2018-19. “1. The order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO KANCHUMARTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

10. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Times global Broadcasting Ltd., [2025] 172 taxmann.com 786 (Bombay) also expressed similar view with respect to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and held as follows: - “INCOME TAX: Where penalty notice issued to assessee did not clarify whether penalty was proposed

KUNKULAGUNTA MALLIKARJUNA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

10. At the threshold, I find it incomprehensible and difficult to fathom the explanation of the assessee that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) had crept in for the reason that a certificate of a bank was being awaited. In my view, the assessee had, based on his lackadaisical conduct, adopted a very casual approach, which

THE ETIKOPPAKA COOP AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

condoned. (The Etikoppaka Cooperative Agricultural Industrial Society Ltd.) In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund

LAKSHMI NARAYANA KOTHA,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in all the appeals that, on 24.04.2025, while travelling on a two-wheeler, he slipped and fell, sustaining fracture of the right ankle, and was advised bed rest for fifty days. Thereafter, on 22.06.2025, he was affected with dengue fever and confined to the house for another 2-3 weeks. These unforeseen health circumstances disrupted his regular routine, and in the process of going to the counsel's office for signing th

10. The Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue Shri Badicala Yadagiri, on the other hand, supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A), submitted that, the assessee could not explain the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal by filing an application for condoning the delay, even though the Ld. CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity of hearing, which

LAKSHMI NARAYANA KOTHA,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in all the appeals that, on 24.04.2025, while travelling on a two-wheeler, he slipped and fell, sustaining fracture of the right ankle, and was advised bed rest for fifty days. Thereafter, on 22.06.2025, he was affected with dengue fever and confined to the house for another 2-3 weeks. These unforeseen health circumstances disrupted his regular routine, and in the process of going to the counsel's office for signing th

10. The Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue Shri Badicala Yadagiri, on the other hand, supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A), submitted that, the assessee could not explain the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal by filing an application for condoning the delay, even though the Ld. CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity of hearing, which

KOSURU KRISHNAVENI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 414/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Kosuru Krishnaveni V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 3(3) Flat No. 401, Jeevan Visakha Apartments Income Tax Office Mntc Colony, Seethammadhara Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam – 530013 Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aotpd2598D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

1. The assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act was passed in the case of appellant on 23.02.2024. As such, the appeal against the order ought to have been filed on or before24.03.2024. However, the appeal could be filed only on 02.05.2024 resulting in a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal. Page

ST. MARYS ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL SOCIETY,NARASARAOPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.484 & 485/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) St. Marys English Medium School Society V. Ito (Exemption) Income Tax Office Main Road, Ravipadu Village Lakshmipuram Main Road Narasaraopet Mandal Guntur – 522006 Narasaraopet – 522604, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakts3349C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

1 Crore and therefore eligible for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, preferred to file the appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A) on 28.02.2022 with a delay of 2513 days. The Ld. CIT(A) while considering the condonation

ST. MARYS ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL SOCIETY,NARASARAOPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.484 & 485/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) St. Marys English Medium School Society V. Ito (Exemption) Income Tax Office Main Road, Ravipadu Village Lakshmipuram Main Road Narasaraopet Mandal Guntur – 522006 Narasaraopet – 522604, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakts3349C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

1 Crore and therefore eligible for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, preferred to file the appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A) on 28.02.2022 with a delay of 2513 days. The Ld. CIT(A) while considering the condonation

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

KOSANAM RAMA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 10. We have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 11. Before proceeding

MATHRUSRI MAHILA MANDALI TETALI,TETALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.213 & 214/Viz/2024 Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali V. Cit (Exemption) Aaykar Bhawan 8-124/31, Lalitha Nagar Opposite Lb Stadium Tetali, Tanuku Mandal Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad – 500004 Tetali- 534218, Andhra Pradesh Telangana [Pan: Aabtm7021J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 86 Page No. 3 I.T.A.Nos.213 & 214/VIZ/2024 Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 6. Briefly stated facts of the case are, assessee has been granted Registration under section 12A of sub-section (1) of clause