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)

section 142(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

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

condone the delay of 106 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual carrying business in purchases and sale of paddy and filed his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 19- 10-2015, declaring income

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

condone the delay of 106 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual carrying business in purchases and sale of paddy and filed his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 19- 10-2015, declaring income

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condonation. Regarding the 4-day delay before the CIT(A), the Tribunal found the delay to be small and the assessee was willing to file an application if given an opportunity. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "142

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

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

delay of 24 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal due to the assessee's medical condition. The core issue is the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) when no return of income was filed under Section 139(1).", "held": "The Tribunal held that to claim any deduction, including under Section 80P, it is mandatory to file

SURYADEVARA CHALAMAIAH,NTR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER ININCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the assessee's appeals for the AY 2014-15 to 2017-\n18 are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

142", "Section 144", "Section 115BBE", "Section 69", "Section 249"], "issues": "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the reasons provided by the assessee and whether the delay should be condoned

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

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 of the assessee has appeared before the Ld. AO from time to time and furnished the relevant information. On perusal of the assessee’s explanation and submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO came to a conclusion that

JANAKI RAM BABJI RAO ANNAM,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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. 92/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-3(1), Pan: Aecpa4464Q Vijayawada. (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 : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

condone the delay of 11 days in 3 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 filed his return of income electronically on 09/12/2017 declaring a total income

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 6. Succinctly stated, the assessee company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing cattle feed and seeds, had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 26.04.2008, declaring a loss of (-) Rs. 1,59,44,684/-. The return of income was initially processed as such

PALLA MADHUSUDANA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.15/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Palla Madhusudana Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Door No.14-6-7, Ramajogipeta Ward-1(2) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bhrpp0382F] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri N.Ravi Babu, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, [Cit(A)]-6, Hyderabad In Appeal No.10357/2018-19/A3 Cit(A)-6 Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Carrying On Business In The Sale Of Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2011-12 On 25.09.2011, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,28,950/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny, Accordingly

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) were issued and served on the assessee, calling for information. However, neither the assessee appeared nor filed information called for. Hence, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment as per the material available on record u/s 144 of the Act. During the year relevant to the A.Y.2011-12, the assessee

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:

142(1), which included supporting documents and clarifications. 5. Invalid Invocation of Section 145(3): The AO invoked Section 145(3) without pointing out any defects in the audited books. 6. Arbitrary Estimation of Income Without Evidence: The AO estimated income at 8% of gross receipts without providing any industry benchmarks or supporting evidence. 7. Additional Ground (General Prayer

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

condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (“AoP”) and has not filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17. During the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer (“learned AO”) observed that there

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

condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (“AoP”) and has not filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17. During the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer (“learned AO”) observed that there

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

condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (“AoP”) and has not filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17. During the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer (“learned AO”) observed that there

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

condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (“AoP”) and has not filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17. During the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer (“learned AO”) observed that there

GANESH TRANSPORTS,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 479/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 480/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

142(1) of the Act. Thereafter the Ld. AO issued show-cause notice under section 144 of the Act dated 01.03.2022 through e-proceedings requiring the assessee to show-cause why the assessment should not be completed under section 144 of the Act due Page. No 2 I.T.A.No. 479 & 480/VIZ/2024 Ganesh Transports to non-compliance by the assessee. Ld. Assessing

GANESH TRANSPORTS,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 479/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 480/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ganesh Transports Vs. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Flat No. 504, Umamaheswari Towers West Ibrahimpatnam M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Vijayawada – 521456 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaifm6717G] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Mv Prasad, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

142(1) of the Act. Thereafter the Ld. AO issued show-cause notice under section 144 of the Act dated 01.03.2022 through e-proceedings requiring the assessee to show-cause why the assessment should not be completed under section 144 of the Act due Page. No 2 I.T.A.No. 479 & 480/VIZ/2024 Ganesh Transports to non-compliance by the assessee. Ld. Assessing