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

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

147", "Section 148", "Section 250(6)", "Section 154"], "issues": "Whether the addition made by the AO was sustainable after it was vacated under Section 154. Condonation of 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

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

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 r.w.s. 147

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

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

JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

delay of 403 days involved in filing\nthe present appeal is inordinate, therefore, the same does not merit condonation.\nThe Ld. DR submitted that as the assessee had failed to intimate to the CIT(A),\nthe fact that the impugned addition made in her case by the A.O vide his order\nunder section 143(3) r.w.s 147

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

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

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

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

147 of the Act was a nullity and was to be quashed. Also, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of PCIT vs. Kamala Devi Sharma, ITA No. 197/2018, dated 10/07/2018, had observed that the issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in reassessment proceedings, prior to finalizing reassessment order cannot

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

147 of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 03.04.2022 was issued by the A.O. 3. As the assessee had failed to file his return of income in compliance to the aforesaid notice issued under section 148 of the Act, dated 03.04.2022 nor complied with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, therefore

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

147", "Section 148", "Section 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

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

GAJULLANKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OP SOCIETY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

condoning the delay by 65 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay was due to unforeseen medical emergency of the Secretary of the rural Co-operative Society, constituting sufficient cause under Section 249(3) of the Act. 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal purely

GAJULLANKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OP SOCIETY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

condoning the delay by 65 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay was due to unforeseen medical emergency of the Secretary of the rural Co-operative Society, constituting sufficient cause under Section 249(3) of the Act. 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal purely

GAJULLANKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OP SOCIETY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

condoning the delay by 65 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay was due to unforeseen medical emergency of the Secretary of the rural Co-operative Society, constituting sufficient cause under Section 249(3) of the Act. 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal purely