SREE ANANTALAKSHMI TEXTILES PVT LTD,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, ELURU

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.402/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer – Tds Ward-1 C/O. Nsl Textiles Limited Income Tax Office, Kks Towers Engee House, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Line R.R. Pet, Eluru – 534002 Chadramouli Nagar, Guntur – 522007 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aadcs1442E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate : Dr. Aparna Villuri,Sr.Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025

section 250(6) of the Act. Page. No 5 I.T.A.No.402/VIZ/2025 Sree Anantalakshmi Textiles (P) Ltd., 9. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] strongly placed reliance on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in rejecting the condonation petition. Ld. DR strongly opposed for condonation of 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

condoning the delay by 94 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay was due to unforeseen medical 6 ITA.Nos.495 to 498/VIZ./2025 emergency of the Secretary of the rural Co-operative Society, constituting sufficient cause under Section 249(3) of the Act. 3. The Learned

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 94 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay was due to unforeseen medical 6 ITA.Nos.495 to 498/VIZ./2025 emergency of the Secretary of the rural Co-operative Society, constituting sufficient cause under Section 249(3) of the Act. 3. The Learned

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 94 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay was due to unforeseen medical 6 ITA.Nos.495 to 498/VIZ./2025 emergency of the Secretary of the rural Co-operative Society, constituting sufficient cause under Section 249(3) of the Act. 3. The Learned

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 94 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay was due to unforeseen medical 6 ITA.Nos.495 to 498/VIZ./2025 emergency of the Secretary of the rural Co-operative Society, constituting sufficient cause under Section 249(3) of the Act. 3. The Learned

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

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

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

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

MAHALAKSHMI SANAGALA,VUYYURU vs. INOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the 41-day delay in filing the appeal due to a dengue fever episode suffered by the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration and to provide the assessee one final opportunity of being heard.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "142(1)", "133(6)", "144B", "69A", "250

SRI JAYALAKSHMI RICE MILL CONTRACTOR G MURALIKRISHNA G vs. SATISH & CO,KAIKALURUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan(Through Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 436/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sri Jayalakshmi Rice Mill Income Tax Officer, Contractors G Vs. Ward-1, Muralikrishna G V S Bhimavaram-534201. Satish & Co, Kaikaluru-521333, Eluru District. [Pan : Adefs2940Q] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K Siva Rama Kumar, Ar रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2024 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 25/11/2024

section 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) are not complied with. 3. Though the learned DR vehemently relied on the orders of the Revenue authorities, the fact remains that the learned CIT(A) did not refer to the facts nor did he dispose of the appeals on merits. Even in the absence

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(6

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(6

KONTHALA RAJENDRA PRASAD,ANAKAPALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAKAPALLE

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

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.283/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

condone the delay and proceed to hear the matter on merits. 4. Learned AR submitted that the assessee is not aware of the notices served on him as he is not conversant with the emails or portals. His main plank of argument is that even in the absence of the assessee since the assessment order is available before the learned

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

section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 resulting a gross injustice to the assessee when huge penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271DA of the Act has been confirmed without deciding the appeal on merits. It is settled proposition of law that the expression of sufficient cause must be construed liberally in favour of the litigant approached

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

section 250(6) of the Act,\n1961 as the Ld. CIT(A) failed to dispose of the appeal on\nmerits and did not address the specific contentions.\nHence, the order is bad in law and deserves to be\nquashed.\n3. That the Ld.CIT(A) failed to grant reasonable and\nadequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant,\nthereby violating

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

SRINIVASARAO GANTA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 388/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2020-21) Srinivasarao Ganta V. Income Tax Officer Visakhaptnam-520002 11 Plot 100, Sector – 3 Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam Urban Mvp Colony So Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Adypg4435G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s143(3) r.w.s.144B of the I.T. Act dt: 16-09-2022, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide order passed u/s 250