KUNKULAGUNTA MALLIKARJUNA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

condonation of delay. 4.1 As per provisions of section 249(3) of the Act the CIT(A) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period (of 30 days) if he is satisfied Page. No 4

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

249(2) of the Act. In column no. 14 of Form No. 35, the appellant has admitted to the delay in filing and has given the reason for condonation of delay which is as under:-. "There is a delay 1501 days due to non availability or non communication of intimation u/s 143(1). The same is visible in the portal

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

Section 249(2) of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, there is no merit in the arguments of the assessee, and thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. 11. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard

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

Section 249(2) of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, there is no merit in the arguments of the assessee, and thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. 11. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard

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(1)", "69A", "115BBE", "249

APPARAO MUTCHAKARLA,VIZAG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIZAG

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.04/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-08) Apparao Mutchakarla, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vizag. Income Tax, Pan: Ahvpm 9813 F Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 19/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

condone the delay of 38 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 an individual was intercepted by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Unit-III-(1), Visakhapatnam at Visakhapatnam Air Port on 28/8/2010

MUPPALLA PADMAVATHI,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 396/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Muppalla Padmavathi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 2(1) D.No. 8-188 Topu Kornepadu Guntur Medical College Road Vatticherukuru Mandal Guntur – 522004 Andhra Pradesh Guntur - 522017 [Pan:Foipm1273L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

condone Page No. 2 Muppalla Padmavathi the delay of 169 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual and has not filed the Return of Income for the A.Y.2019-20. The case of the assessee is flagged

ST. MARYS ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL SOCIETY,NARASARAOPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.484 & 485/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) St. Marys English Medium School Society V. Ito (Exemption) Income Tax Office Main Road, Ravipadu Village Lakshmipuram Main Road Narasaraopet Mandal Guntur – 522006 Narasaraopet – 522604, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakts3349C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 249(3) of the Act empowers the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay if satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within that period. In the instant case, Ld. CIT(A) on being not satisfied with the cause shown by the assessee declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal first appeal

ST. MARYS ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL SOCIETY,NARASARAOPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.484 & 485/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) St. Marys English Medium School Society V. Ito (Exemption) Income Tax Office Main Road, Ravipadu Village Lakshmipuram Main Road Narasaraopet Mandal Guntur – 522006 Narasaraopet – 522604, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakts3349C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 249(3) of the Act empowers the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay if satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within that period. In the instant case, Ld. CIT(A) on being not satisfied with the cause shown by the assessee declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal first appeal

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:

249(2) of the Act. In column no. 14 of Form No. 35, the appellant has admitted to the delay in filing and has given the reason for condonation of delay which is as under... "Condonation of delay for filing the appeal: The petitioner humbly submits that he suffered with ill health due to Jaundice and typhoid and prays

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

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

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

section 249 of the Act, CIT(A) has been empowered to admit an appeal which has been filed after the expiry of the stipulated period of 30 days, but subject to recording his satisfaction that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within the said period. As such the CIT(A) is vested with the power

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:

Section 249 of the Act, in all fairness, ought to have condoned the delay involved in the appeal filed by the assessee firm before him. Our aforesaid view that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be taken while dealing with an application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal is supported

BOLLINA SIVARAMA KRISHNA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.28/Viz/2022 & 30/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Bollina Sivarama Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.78-15-5 Ward-2(1) G-1, Rk Towers Rajahmundry Sastry Hospital Road Rajahmundry [Pan : Aiupb4182C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasad Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Rajamahendravaram In Ita No.10005/2018-19/Cit(A)/Rjy & 10151/2017-18/Cit(A)/Rjy Dated 12.12.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 With The Delay Of 735 Days. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Was Passed On 12.12.2019, As 2

4 are general in nature, which do not require specific adjudication. 6. Ground No.2 is related to condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with the delay of 276 days, submitting that the assessee has gone through a major surgery and hence, could not file the appeal

ANJAN DASGUPTA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 218/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Anjan Dasgupta, Vs. Dcit, Gurgaon. Circle-1(1), Pan: Afspd0589G Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Nitin Gulati, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condonation of delay is rejected as the same is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: 3 Anjan Dasgupta vs. DCIT “1. That the appellant