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 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

KOSURU KRISHNAVENI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 414/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Kosuru Krishnaveni V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 3(3) Flat No. 401, Jeevan Visakha Apartments Income Tax Office Mntc Colony, Seethammadhara Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam – 530013 Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan:Aotpd2598D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 23.02.2024. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 212 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention

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 involved in filing of the appeal before him and restore the matter to his file, with a direction to re- adjudicate the appeal qua the issues based on which the impugned assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 144

SIMHADRI SUNITHA,VIZAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.114/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Simhadri Sunitha V. Ito – Ward – 4(2) Income Tax Office D.No. 48-8-18, Chikkala Residency Direct Taxes Building Flat No. 1, 4Th Floor, Dwarakanagar Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530016 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Avtps9852Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 31.12.2018. 2. On perusal of ground of appeal filed by the assessee, we observe that in this appeal, assessee has challenged the ground relating to dismissing condonation petition by the Ld. CIT(A)without condoning delay

BALA TRIPURA SUNDARI BOPPANA,DUBACHERLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3),, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.427/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bala Tripura Sundari Boppana V. Ito – Ward – 2(3) Central Revenue Building G-2, Sunrise Apartments M.G. Road, Vijayawada Opp. Elite School, Chebrolu Road Andhra Pradesh - 520001 Dubacherla, Nallajerla Mandal Andhra Pradesh – 534112 [Pan: Aiepb0600R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 12.01.2024. 2. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”], inviting our attention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 102 days in filing the appeal stating that submissions are vague and dismissed the appeal without

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

condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the Ld. AO for de novo decision on merits.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 147", "Section 148", "Section 142", "Section 144

NANDYALA NAGA VENKATA RAJU,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANAKU

144 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 due to alleged non-filing of return and large cash credits in the assessee's bank account. The AO made additions on account of unexplained money and estimated business receipts. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay

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

144 of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O called for a copy of the assessee’s bank account number 225811100000034 held with Andhra Bank (now merged with Union Bank of India) under section 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

KOTA RADHA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

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

section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 28.03.2024. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

KOTA RADHA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

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

section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 28.03.2024. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 30.12.2019. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 144 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee

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

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

144 read with section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee

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

144 read with section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee

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

144 read with section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee

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

144 read with section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee

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

144 of the Act on 20.03.2014. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) on 30.06.2016. The impugned order appealed against dated 20.03.2014 was served on the assessee on 30.03.2014 and the assessee ought to have filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) within 30 days of date of service

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

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 Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] observed that as per Form 26AS assessee has received an amount of Rs.4,97,72,941/- as transport charges from Penna Cement Industries Limited and also received an interest