BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

53 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai116Delhi91Kolkata74Chennai72Jaipur69Bangalore69Visakhapatnam53Hyderabad51Raipur45Chandigarh36Surat24Pune22Patna21Rajkot18Cochin15Ahmedabad10Nagpur9Indore6Lucknow6Panaji4Kerala4Cuttack4SC3Jabalpur2Allahabad2Karnataka1Guwahati1Jodhpur1Agra1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)52Addition to Income34Section 13231Section 132(4)30Section 133A25Survey u/s 133A25Section 14821Section 153A18Section 147

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

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

ITA 551/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 40

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

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3

14
Section 26314
Condonation of Delay13
Deduction10

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

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

ITA 552/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 40

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

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

ITA 312/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri Md. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

133A of the Act on 19/08/2011. The return was selected for scrutiny on Manual- Compulsory basis. Thereafter, notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 19/09/2014 and duly served on the assessee on 24/09/2014. Further, notices U/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued on 2/1/2015 and 20/01/2015 and called for certain information. In reply, the Authorized Representative

ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, TUNI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

ITA 465/VIZ/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 133ASection 2(24)

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 2.1 The common issue in all the appeals raised by the revenue is related to the treatment of development fee received by the assessee. The assessee is a Society registered under Societies Act, 1860 by M/s. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni registration No.493 of 1983 on 27th day of November

ACIT, (EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNI,

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

ITA 382/VIZ/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 133ASection 2(24)

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 2.1 The common issue in all the appeals raised by the revenue is related to the treatment of development fee received by the assessee. The assessee is a Society registered under Societies Act, 1860 by M/s. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni registration No.493 of 1983 on 27th day of November

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNII

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

ITA 467/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 133ASection 2(24)

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. 2.1 The common issue in all the appeals raised by the revenue is related to the treatment of development fee received by the assessee. The assessee is a Society registered under Societies Act, 1860 by M/s. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni registration No.493 of 1983 on 27th day of November

SMT. L SUDHA BALA, L/R OF LATE SRI L.NARSA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. THE DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE GUNTUR, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 261/VIZ/2012[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 1985-86

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

delay is condoned. 2. The assessee filed appeal raising the following grounds along with Form No.36. (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax is not correct in law or on facts in upholding the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act though the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment

SMT. L SUDHA BALA, L/R OF LATE SRI L.NARSA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. THE DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE GUNTUR, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 260/VIZ/2012[1984-85]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 1984-85

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

delay is condoned. 2. The assessee filed appeal raising the following grounds along with Form No.36. (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax is not correct in law or on facts in upholding the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act though the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment

ADIMULAM HARIVARDHAN ,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE CIT(A)-12, , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 529/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleadimulam Harivardhan, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), S/O Late A. Narayana Rao, Rajahmundry. Prop. M/S. Murali Krishna Enterprises, D.No. 29-33-6, Devi Chowk, Rajahmundry. Pan No. Atjpa 8637 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.V.N. Hari – Advocate. Department By : Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2019. Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2019. O R D E R Per V. Durga Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, Dated 18/07/2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of One Day In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit. We Have Gone Through The Affidavit & Find That There Is A Sufficient Cause To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Is Condoned. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is The Proprietor Of M/S. Sree Murali Krishna Enterprises, Engaged In (Adimulam Harivardhan)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

delay is condoned. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is the proprietor of M/s. Sree Murali Krishna Enterprises, engaged in (Adimulam Harivardhan) retail trade of tiles and allied material. A survey under section 133A

GADDE HARI PRASADA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 368/VIZ/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

delay is condoned. (Gadde Kishan & Another) For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from ITA No. 4. 367/VIZ/2019. The assessee is an individual, filed his return of income by declaring total income of Rs.55,300/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

GADDE KISHNA,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 367/VIZ/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

delay is condoned. (Gadde Kishan & Another) For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from ITA No. 4. 367/VIZ/2019. The assessee is an individual, filed his return of income by declaring total income of Rs.55,300/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

SRI SURYA ANJANEYA INDUSTRIES,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. Sri Surya Anjaneya Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Industries, D.No. 108/12, Vizianagaram. Opp.Fire Station, K.L.Puram, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram. Pan No. Abgfs 0809 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.V. Subba Rao– Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

delay is condoned. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a firm, 4. filed its return of income by declaring total income of Rs.8,36,860/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

ABHILASH SYNERGETIC CONSTRUCTIONS & EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 108/VIZ/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik,Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80ISection 8O

133A of the act in the case of assessee and the Assessing Officer found that though the assessee had claimed deduction u/sec. 80IB(10) for the A.Y. 2007-08 during the pendency of the project, subsequently the assessee has not filed returns of income, thus, viewed that the assessee has not completed the project, hence, reopened the assessment by issues

ABHILASH SYNERGETIC CONSTRUCTIONS & EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 104/VIZ/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik,Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80ISection 8O

133A of the act in the case of assessee and the Assessing Officer found that though the assessee had claimed deduction u/sec. 80IB(10) for the A.Y. 2007-08 during the pendency of the project, subsequently the assessee has not filed returns of income, thus, viewed that the assessee has not completed the project, hence, reopened the assessment by issues

ABHILASH SYNERGETIC CONSTRUCTIONS & EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 109/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik,Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80ISection 8O

133A of the act in the case of assessee and the Assessing Officer found that though the assessee had claimed deduction u/sec. 80IB(10) for the A.Y. 2007-08 during the pendency of the project, subsequently the assessee has not filed returns of income, thus, viewed that the assessee has not completed the project, hence, reopened the assessment by issues

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUTNUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

ITA 204/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132Section 132(4)

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUNTUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

ITA 205/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132Section 132(4)

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL, , GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

ITA 202/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132Section 132(4)

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUTNUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

ITA 206/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132Section 132(4)

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, GUTNUR vs. ARUNACHALAM MANICKVEL,, GUTNUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue for the A

ITA 203/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.202/Viz/2020 To 207/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12 To 2016-17) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop : M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan :Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar. सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V.Prasad, AR
Section 132Section 132(4)

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds which are common for all the assessment years. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the probative value of voluntary admission u/s.132