ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condone the delay of 11 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and we proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the Revenue has raised the identical grounds, we shall take up ITA No. 226/Viz/2022 as a lead appeal. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the AY 2018-19. “1. The order

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

ii) Income from House Property: Rs.1,35,000/-; and (iii) Income from Other Sources: Rs.14,16,609/-. Accordingly, the AO/CPC, Bengaluru, based on the aforesaid intimation dated 11.01.2019, raised a demand of Rs. 6,36,000/- in the hands of the assessee. Page. No 5 I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

ARIMILLI RAMA KRISHNA,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

1) of the Act. 15. Although the Ld. Sr. DR had tried to impress upon us that for framing of assessment pursuant to the return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, there is no further obligation cast upon the AO to issue a notice under section 143

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)

ii) to comply with the notice issued under section 13/02/2018 and furnish a return of income for the subject year in compliance thereto. 7. The assessee, in compliance to the aforesaid notice issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 12/06/2019 is stated to have put up an appearance before the AO and filed a return of income

THE ETIKOPPAKA COOP AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

143(2), the assessee submitted required information through e-proceedings and filed some information physically as it was voluminous. The AO on verification of 3CD report filed for the A.Y. 2017-18 found that assessee has paid contribution of PF received from Employees‟ to the concerned authorities beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Acts for some

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

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

Bench: Us:

ii. Without prejudice to ground no "i" the order u/s 143(3) dt.26.12.2019 passed by the AO Rjy falls outside his jurisdictional bounds, since the jurisdiction to assess the assessee lies with the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-8(1) Hyderabad (in short "AO Hyd"). Even otherwise, AO Rjy assumed jurisdiction, without a valid order

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR vs. SILEMANKHAN & MAHABOOBKHAN, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.571/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Silemankhan & Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.149/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.571/Viz/2019) (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) M/S Silemankhan & Vs. Deputy.Commissioner Of Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any entry in respect of an expense recorded in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to the specified previous year which is found to be false and would not have been found to be so had the search

YENUGUVANI LANKA RURAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YENUGUVANI LANKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALAKOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.265/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Yenuguvani Lanka Rural Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Educational Society, Income Tax Buildings, D.No.2-76, New Harijana Peta, Near Govt. College, Yenuguvani Lanka. Doddipatla Road, Palakol, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaaay 2757 K (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

delay cannot be condoned. The Ld. CIT(A) also quoted section 143(1)(a)(ii) that the adjustments by CPC were

SYSTEMATIC ENTERPRISES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

ii. NFAC has not considered the CBDT Circular No. 10/2021 extending the period of limitation with respect to appeals falling due for filing on or after 15.03.2020 in obedience to the Honourable Supreme Court decision on this issue due to the unprecedented COVID-19 Pandemic. 2. The Central Processing Centre (CPC for short) is not justified in making an addition

SYSTEMATIC ENTERPRISES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

ii. NFAC has not considered the CBDT Circular No. 10/2021 extending the period of limitation with respect to appeals falling due for filing on or after 15.03.2020 in obedience to the Honourable Supreme Court decision on this issue due to the unprecedented COVID-19 Pandemic. 2. The Central Processing Centre (CPC for short) is not justified in making an addition

SRI KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI AMMAVARI TEMPLE,BURUJUPETA vs. CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.358/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple V. Centralized Processing Center D.No. 22-71-26/B, Skml Temple Bangalore. Kotha Road, Burujupeta Visakhapatnam – 530001, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaajs1861M] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent)

143(1) of the Act was issued on 29.03.2017, and the assessee filed the appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 06.03.2023. It is noted that the assessee sought condonation of delay when filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and the Ld. CIT(A), while passing the impugned order, has condoned the delay. Therefore, for all practical purposes

SAGARA VIKASA MUTUALLY AIDED COOP THRIFT SOCIETY LTD ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.235/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sagara Vikasa Mutually Aided Coop Vs. Income Tax Officer Thrift Society Ltd., Ward-2(1) Opp. Sun School Visakhapatnam Near Vuda Layout, Bheemunipatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aacas9620H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

delay in filing the return is to be condoned. The Ld.DR relied on the decision of coordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Unagatla Large Sized Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Chagallu Mandal vide I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2021 dated 08.03.2023. The said case law is not applicable to the case on hand, because the case law pertains to section 143(1

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

ii) The terms sufficient cause should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis

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

ii) The terms sufficient cause should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis

KOSANAM RAMA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Us:

143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2019, wherein the income of the assessee was determined after making two disallowances, viz. (i). disallowance of penalty expenses: Rs. 49,060/- and (ii). disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction of delayed deposit of the employees’ share of contribution towards Provident Fund: Rs. 16,382/-. 4. Thereafter, the Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income

KRISHNA CHAITANYA DURGASI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ELURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Blekrishna Chaitanya Durgasi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 Eluru Flat No. 507, Om Sai Residency Huda Trade Center Behind Punjab National Bank Lingampally, Hyderabad – 500019 Telangana Pan: Ahkpd6655R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, Assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 12.08.2023 admitting the total income of Rs.1

SREERAMULU PENTAKOTA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

section 143(1) of the Act. Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.555/VIZ/2025 Sreeramulu Pentakota 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the reasons leading to the delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee in the backdrop of the material available on record. In our view, there is substance in the Ld. AR’s contention that as the assessee during