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

13, State of Nagaland vs Lipok AO&Ors, AIR 2005 SC 2191 and D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Karala&Anr. AIR 2007 SC 2624. 5. In the appellant in the instant case, having considered the facts available on record, the grounds mentioned for inordinate delay of 5 months in filing this appeal are found to be not convincing

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 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by an order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the A.O. Once again, the said appeal was filed on 19.10.2024 with a delay of 966 days. The assessee has explained the reasons by filing petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit and attributed the delay to ignorance of income tax proceedings

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 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by an order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the A.O. Once again, the said appeal was filed on 19.10.2024 with a delay of 966 days. The assessee has explained the reasons by filing petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit and attributed the delay to ignorance of income tax proceedings

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 of 1503 days that was involved

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

3 crores under Section 69A of the Act, as unexplained money and brought to tax under Section 115BBE of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the said appeal was filed on 29- 04-2022. During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) noticed that, the A.O. passed

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

3 crores under Section 69A of the Act, as unexplained money and brought to tax under Section 115BBE of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the said appeal was filed on 29- 04-2022. During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) noticed that, the A.O. passed

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

condonation of delay stands dismissed. 6. Resultantly, the appeal i.e. ITA No.43/VIZ/2020 of the Assessee stands dismissed in limine. 7. In this appeal, the Assessee has challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) against the affirmation of additions qua grants-in-aid received by the Assessee society as capital in nature and disallowance of deduction claimed u/sec

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

condonation of delay stands dismissed. 6. Resultantly, the appeal i.e. ITA No.43/VIZ/2020 of the Assessee stands dismissed in limine. 7. In this appeal, the Assessee has challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) against the affirmation of additions qua grants-in-aid received by the Assessee society as capital in nature and disallowance of deduction claimed u/sec

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:

3) of the Act, dt.27.14.2019. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee firm involving no further loss of time filed the appeal with the CIT(A) on 20.02.2020, which by the time involved a delay of 26 days. The Ld.AR submitted that though the delay of 26 days involved in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) had crept

SADHIKA GANNI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 7. Succinctly stated, the assessee had during the year under consideration made cash deposits of Rs.1 crore in her bank account with HDFC Bank Account No.50100077065070, Branch: Rajamahendravaram on 12.11.2016, which thereafter was transferred to another account held by one Sri Bhaskara Rao on 14.11.2016. 8. On a perusal

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:

condone the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing. 3. Succinctly stated, the A.O., based on information received from the Income Tax Officer (Investigation), Unit–4, Vijayawada, vide his letter dated 04.02.2019, observed that the assessee had made cash deposits

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

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

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

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Since the grounds raised by the assessee in all the three appeals are identical, we shall take up the ITA No. 236/Viz/2022 (AY 2013-14) as the lead appeal. 5. Brief facts of the case pertaining

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Since the grounds raised by the assessee in all the three appeals are identical, we shall take up the ITA No. 236/Viz/2022 (AY 2013-14) as the lead appeal. 5. Brief facts of the case pertaining

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

condone the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Since the grounds raised by the assessee in all the three appeals are identical, we shall take up the ITA No. 236/Viz/2022 (AY 2013-14) as the lead appeal. 5. Brief facts of the case pertaining