PONNAM BHAVANI,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.331 & 332/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15) Smt. Ponnam Bhavani Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada (International Taxation) Pan:Ajzpp5085E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order

200 u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs.1,21,128 u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing”. ““1. The order of the learned CIT (A)-10 is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned

ALURI YOGENDRA KUMAR L/R OF LATE ALURI MADHUSUDHANA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. On the basis of information received that the assessee had deposited cash during the demonetization period, notice under section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Assessee failed

JAIN BABULAL CHAMPATLAL,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.400 & 401/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Jain Babulal Champatlal Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex 40-1-155, Lgf Mg Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aefpc1220F]

section 270A of the Act and simultaneously imposed the penalty of Rs.8,56,824/- being 200% of the amount of tax payable on misreported income and passed the order dated 26.03.2022. 3. On being aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred two appeals i.e., one appeal against the quantum addition and the other appeal against

JAIN BABULAL CHAMPATLAL,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.400 & 401/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Jain Babulal Champatlal Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex 40-1-155, Lgf Mg Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aefpc1220F]

section 270A of the Act and simultaneously imposed the penalty of Rs.8,56,824/- being 200% of the amount of tax payable on misreported income and passed the order dated 26.03.2022. 3. On being aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred two appeals i.e., one appeal against the quantum addition and the other appeal against

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

condone the delay of 116 days in filing\nthe appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits.\n4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an\nindividual. As per the information available with the\nDepartment, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has\ndeposited cash of Rs. 45,72,200

VATTIKUTI VEERA VENKATA PRASAD,RAMACHANDRAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, 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.280/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Shop-03, Ramachandra Puram Ward-1 Ramachandrapuram Mandal Kakinada East Godavari [Pan : Akqpv2779M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay in the interest of justice and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, had not filed return of income for A.Y.2015-16. It was noticed by the department that the assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.80,45,200/- in his bank account No.048301500633 maintained with ICICI

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

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

200/-, Page 12 of APB. Also, we find that a perusal of the assessment order reveals that the AO had issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act, dated 02.12.2019. At this stage, we may herein observe that neither is it discernible from the record nor has any material been produced before us, which would reveal that any other

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA vs. FYSOLATE TECHNOLOGIES, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, a firm, based out at VSEZ, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam, is engaged in the manufacturing and export of wide range of herbal extracts, filed

PEDDINI ASHOK KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.356/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Peddini Ashok Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer- Ward-4(1) D.No. 49-36-13/1 Income Tax Office Nggo’S Colony, Akkayyapalem Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530016 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aqlpp3626L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and we 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 for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 admitting total income at Rs.7,82,200/-. The case

GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S Balakrishnanआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.456, 457 & 458/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Government Polytechnic, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Tds Ward-1, Pan: Aaagg1122Q Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

200/- U/s. 234E of the Act on account of delayed filing of the TDS returns for the AY 2014-15. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC belatedly beyond the prescribed time limit specified under the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee has filed petition

GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S Balakrishnanआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.456, 457 & 458/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Government Polytechnic, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Tds Ward-1, Pan: Aaagg1122Q Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

200/- U/s. 234E of the Act on account of delayed filing of the TDS returns for the AY 2014-15. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC belatedly beyond the prescribed time limit specified under the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee has filed petition

GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S Balakrishnanआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.456, 457 & 458/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Government Polytechnic, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Tds Ward-1, Pan: Aaagg1122Q Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

200/- U/s. 234E of the Act on account of delayed filing of the TDS returns for the AY 2014-15. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC belatedly beyond the prescribed time limit specified under the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee has filed petition

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

condone the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. As per the information available with the Department, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 45,72,200

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

condone the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. As per the information available with the Department, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 45,72,200