MAHALAKSHMI SANAGALA,VUYYURU vs. INOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the 41-day delay in filing the appeal due to a dengue fever episode suffered by the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration and to provide the assessee one final opportunity of being heard.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "142(1)", "133(6

KORADA RAJU,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, VIZIANAGARM

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

condoned the delay of 381 days, acknowledging that it was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to be heard.", "result": "Remanded", "sections": [ "143(3)", "133(6

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

133(6) of the Act and obtained the information from the bank authorities. On verification of the information gathered by the Ld. AO, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 31,69,500/- during demonetization period. Accordingly, in view of the provisions of section 144(1)(b) of the Act and considering the assessee

BODA RAMASATYANARAYANA,DRAKSHARAMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

133(6) of the Act to the banks and, based on the bank statements of the assessee therein obtained /gathered, observed that the assessee had, during the demonetization, made cash deposits of Rs. 16,35,000/- Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.532/VIZ/2025 Boda Ramasatyanarayana . As the assessee had failed to come forth with a proper explanation regarding the source

VELAGA SIVA PARVATHI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

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

condoned the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal due to the assessee's husband's ill health and COVID-19 complications, which prevented timely communication. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh, providing one final opportunity to the assessee to be heard.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "133(6

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

SRINIVASA RAO SIRIVURI PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

133(6) of the Act. The A.O on perusal of the copy of the bank account of the assessee as was made available to him, observed that he had during the subject year made cash deposits of Rs.89,57,554/-. As the assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation regarding the sources of the aforesaid cash deposits, therefore

SAMBASIVA RAO MUPPERA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR., GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.156/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Sambasiva Rao Muppera, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(1), Pan: Dcdpm0224C Guntur. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

section 133(6) of the Act. However, the neither the assessee nor the bank authorities furnishd any information as called for by the Ld.AO. Therefore, the Ld. AO issued a show cause notice dated 23/03/2022 was issued in the form of draft 4 assessment order and in response to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted his reply. On perusal

GULIPALLI SATISH,BOBBILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

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’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 413/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gulipalli Satish, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bobbili. Ward-1, Pan: Cbnpg3883K Vizianagaram. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

section 148A(d) of the Act. Thereafter, notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 07/11/2023 calling for the details. However, the assessee has not submitted any details. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued a show cause notice U/s. 144 of the Act on 19/12/2023, however, the assessee did not submit any details. Further, another show cause notice

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

CHANDRA BOSU BABU RAMESH YANGALA,GUDIVADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIVADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.214/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Chandra Bosu Babu Ramesh Yangala Asst. City Planner Gudiwada, Andhra Pradesh Gudivada Municipality Gudivada – 521301 Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Acspy1662Q] (अपीलधर्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri K. Siva Rama Kumar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

6. It is humbly and respectfully submitted that the Appeal couldn't be filed in time, view of the above genuine reason. Thus, there is an unintended delay of 144 (One hundred forty-four) days only in filing the Appeal (the Appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal was due by 16.11.2024). 7. It is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal

JAYBHERI ENTERPRISES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.410/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) Jaybheri Enterprises, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaofj1639A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Mn. Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/09/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 11/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income

section 250(6) of the IT Act which obligates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had made contractual payments of Rs. 1,10,43,654/- and Rs. 4,48,43,233/- to sub-contracts, after deducting tax at source in compliance with

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

133(6) of the Act to the Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Sainikpuri Branch, Hyderabad and called for the bank statement of the assessee. On perusal of the bank statement furnished by the Bank Authorities, the Ld. AO noted that the assessee made cash deposit of Rs. 15,42,000/- during the demonetization period. 3 Thereafter, the Ld. AO brought

RAMBABU ANGADALA,GUDIVADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIVADA

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.241/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rambabu Angadala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7-12/C, Veleru, Veeravalli Ward-1, Bapulapadu, Krishna-521110, Gudivada. Andhra Pradesh-521110. Pan: Brwpa7640C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 475 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. For the AY 2017-18, the assessee did not file his return of income. As per the information available with

ANGADALA RAMAKRISHNA,VELERU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIVADA

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.242/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ramakrishna Angadala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7-121/B, Veeravalli, Bapulapadu, Ward-1, Krishna District-521110, Gudivada. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Brwpa7639F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 207 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. For the AY 2017-18, the assessee did not file his return of income. As per the information available with

SRI RAJANI GOLD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.162/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Rajani Gold V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) D.No. 11-49-336B Central Revenue Building Sivalayam Street, I Town Mg Road – 520001 Vijayawada – 520001 Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfs6675E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 65 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-firm is carrying on business of bullion trading in gold and silver and trading in gold ornaments and silver articles and filed its return of income

THE PULIMERU LARGE SIZE CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PEDDAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.355/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) The Pulimeru Large Size Co-Op Vs. Income Tax Officer, Credit Society Limited, Ward-1, Peddapuram. Kakinada. Pan: Aacat2023M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Kss Sarma, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 17/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

section 133(6) of the Act. On perusal of the material available before him, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee made cash deposits in its savings bank account aggregating to Rs. 40,92,456/- out of which an amount of Rs. 36,72,488/- has been deposited in cash during the FY 2014-15. In the absence

JAMI PRADHAMIKA VYAVASAYASHARAKARA PARAPATHI SANGHAM LTD.,,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 206/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Jami Pradhamika Vyavasaya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakara Parapathi Vizianagaram. Sanghamltd., Vizianagaram. Pan: Aabaj1927F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

section 144 of the Act. Meanwhile, the Ld. AO also tried to obtain the details of cash transactions in the assessee’s bank account from State Bank of India, Jami Branch U/s. 133(6) of the Act but till the date of passing of the assessment order, the Ld. AO could not get the reply from the bank. In such