DR KONDABOLU BASAVAPUNAIAH & DR LAKSHMI PRASAD TRUST,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

condone the delay in\nfiling the present appeal by the assessee and proceed to decide the appeal on merits.\n4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -\n\"1.\nThat, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, dt.27.12.2019

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the appellate authority for condoning the delay. After having gone through different citations of different forums as well as courts, I have noticed that the Courts have time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

13,40,509/-, the same was determined by the AO/CPC, Bangalore at Rs. 27,57,118/-. 7. I find that the assessee aggrieved with the order of AO/CPC, Bangalore, passed under section 143(1) dated 11.01.2019, had carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A), who declined to condone the inordinate delay

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

Section 249(2) of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, there is no merit in the arguments of the assessee, and thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. 11. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard

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

Section 249(2) of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, there is no merit in the arguments of the assessee, and thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. 11. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard

SYED IRFAN HAZARI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), GUNTUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Section 249(2) of the Act. In column no. 14 of Form No. 35, the appellant has admitted to the delay in filing and has given the reason for condonation of delay which is as under... "Condonation of delay for filing the appeal: The petitioner humbly submits that he suffered with ill health due to Jaundice and typhoid and prays

SREE ANANTALAKSHMI TEXTILES PVT LTD,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, ELURU

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.402/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward-1 C/O. Nsl Textiles Limited Income Tax Office, Kks Towers Engee House, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Line R.R. Pet, Eluru – 534002 Chadramouli Nagar, Guntur – 522007 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aadcs1442E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate : Dr. Aparna Villuri,Sr.Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025

section 201(1)/201(1A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 30.06.2023. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal records that there is a delay of 20 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention

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)

section 249(3) of the Act empowers the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay if satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within that period. In the instant case, Ld. CIT(A) on being not satisfied with the cause shown by the assessee declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal first appeal

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)

section 249(3) of the Act empowers the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay if satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within that period. In the instant case, Ld. CIT(A) on being not satisfied with the cause shown by the assessee declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal first appeal

MANNE KRISHNA KISHORE,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in-limine

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

13,250/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee to some extent and granted part relief to the assessee and partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order

RMCANA INDIA FOUNDATION,KAKINADA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.196 & 197/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Rmcana India Foundation Vs. Commissioner Of Income East Godavari Tax (Exemption) Pan:Aamcr3582K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I Kama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao

condonation of delay along with an affidavit to explain the cause of delay of 10 and 13 days in filing the applications in Form 10AB seeking registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G respectively of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned AR has thus, submitted that the delay was beyond the control of the assessee and the CIT (Exemption) could

RMCANA INDIA FOUNDATION,KAKINADA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.196 & 197/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25) Rmcana India Foundation Vs. Commissioner Of Income East Godavari Tax (Exemption) Pan:Aamcr3582K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I Kama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao

condonation of delay along with an affidavit to explain the cause of delay of 10 and 13 days in filing the applications in Form 10AB seeking registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G respectively of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned AR has thus, submitted that the delay was beyond the control of the assessee and the CIT (Exemption) could

BAYYE CHANDRA KUMAR,WEST GODAVARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3), dated 12.12.2019, before the CIT(A) within the prescribed period i.e on 06.01.2020, but thereafter, he had opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Elaborating on her contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was issued Form-1 and Form-2 under the aforesaid scheme on 09.12.2020 for settlement of the appeal under the scheme

GIRIJAN CO-OP MARKRTING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made submissions explaining

GIRIJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made submissions explaining

GIRJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made submissions explaining

GIRJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made submissions explaining

KVC INFRASTRUCTURES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

delay of 26 days involved in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) had crept in because of the bonafide reasons and not on account of any lackadaisical approach 8 KVC Infrastructures of the assessee firm, but the CIT(A) had most arbitrarily declined to condone the same. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) had observed that