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

delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to bonafide reasons. The matter was set aside to the AO for verification and to vacate the addition if found in order.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 143(3)", "Section 147", "Section 148", "Section 250

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

250 of the IT Act dt: 26.06.2025 is not in accordance with facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay by 65 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay

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

250 of the IT Act dt: 26.06.2025 is not in accordance with facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay by 65 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay

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

250 of the IT Act dt: 26.06.2025 is not in accordance with facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay by 65 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay

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

250 of the IT Act dt: 26.06.2025 is not in accordance with facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay by 65 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay

MANNE KRISHNA KISHORE,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in-limine

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

250/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee to some extent and granted part relief to the assessee and partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

KANDIPALLI APPALA RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

condoned the delay.", "held": "The ITAT held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to sufficient cause beyond the appellant's control. The ex-parte order was passed due to the assessee's non-appearance. The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case on merits.", "result": "Allowed for statistical purposes", "sections": [ "250

POTLURI VENKATA NAGESWARA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Potluri Venkata Nageswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Huf), Ward-2(4), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aaohp 2167 F (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 08/07/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

250(6) of the Act for the AY 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal: 2 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and facts in sustaining the addition made by AO towards higher indexed cost of acquisition without any basis or evidence. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in both

PARASURAM KESARI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condoned the delay of 570 days in filing the appeal when the delay was explained with cause vide petition filed before the Ld. CIT(A) along with affidavit. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) in a summary and casual manner observed that assessee failed to explain the delay reasonably ignoring the contents of petition filed along with affidavit, which by themselves

SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's bonafide reasons. On merits, it upheld the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- as unexplained income under Section 69A but directed the AO to restrict the addition by Rs. 2,50,000/- based on CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017, treating the remaining Rs. 8,50,000/- as unexplained

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

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

250/- in the intimation issued by the A.O/CPC under section 143(1) of the Act dated 29.12.2020. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Ostensibly, as the assessee, despite having been offered seven opportunities, had failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, the latter held a conviction that the assessee

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

delay in filing the present appeal was condoned due to bonafide reasons.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "148", "154", "250

PARASURAM KESARI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

section 40A(3) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 56,57,210/- towards lorry hire charges. Therefore, the Ld. AO issued a notice U/s. 148 of the Act on 11/12/2015 which was served on 15/12/2015. In response, the assessee filed his revised return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 11/1/2016 declaring a total income

SRI KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI AMMAVARI TEMPLE,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.234/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 154 to the consequential order was passed on 06.11.2024, and the intimation letter was dated 21.10.2024. o The appellant was awaiting the outcome of another pending appeal for AY 2015-16 before the Honourable ITAT Visakhapatnam in ITA No. 358/VIZ/2024. The matter was heard on 06.03.2025, and the judgment was reserved as on 04.04.2025. Since the facts and legal

VARDHANAPU MANIKUMARI OF LATE EARNEST CHRISTOPHER VARDHANAPU,BHIMAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

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.256/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Smt.Vardhanapu Manikumari Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Earnest Christopher Ward-1 Vardhanapu Bhimavaram D.No.21-16-30A Dora Bangalow Mission Compound, West Godavari [Pan : Aeepv0600F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s husband, Shri Earnest Christopher Vardhanapu stated to have worked as pastor with Andhra Evangelical Luthern Church, Guntur was in receipt of 300 sq.yds of land, valued at Rs.75,00,000/- as gift on 28.05.2013 without

SRI RAJANI GOLD,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.471/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Rajani Gold Vs. Income Tax Officer Vijayawada Ward(1) Pan:Acnfs6675E Vijayawada (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25/05/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Da Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 474 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay

condonation of delay are fortified by Page 4 of 10 ITA 471 of 2024 Sri Rajani Gold Vijayawada the fact that the learned CIT (A) has passed the impugned order for non-prosecution and no details were given by the learned CIT (A) as how the notices were sent or served on the assessee. The appeal of the assessee

VIJAYALAKSHMI DAGGUMALLI,KRISHNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.165/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Vijayalakshmi Daggumalli, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Krishna District, Ward-1(3), Andhra Pradesh. Vijayawada. Pan: Cuvpd4504P (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan, Am:

condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and thereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with the provisions of section 250

GANESH KUMAR PAIDI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

250 of the Income Tax Act be set aside and the additions made by the Assessing Officer be deleted.” 2. Also, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal that reads as under: 3 Ganesh Kumar Paidi “The Finance Act 2017 introduced an amendment to Section 115BBE of the IT Act, which set a higher tax rate