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)

3. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal was due to the reasons explained above which were beyond the control of the appellant. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the appellant prays the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to kindly condone the said delay of 39 days in filing the appeal and to pass appropriate orders

SIMHADRI SUNITHA,VIZAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.114/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) Simhadri Sunitha V. Ito – Ward – 4(2) Income Tax Office D.No. 48-8-18, Chikkala Residency Direct Taxes Building Flat No. 1, 4Th Floor, Dwarakanagar Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530016 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Avtps9852Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

3. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”], inviting our attention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 1100 days (includes Covid-19 Pandemic) in filing the appeal before First Appellate Authority stating that “defective appeal of the appellant is not fit to be admitted

THE TENALI PT EMPLOYEES MUTUALLY AIDED CO OP THRIFT CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,TENALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

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. 361/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) The Tenali P & T Employees V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 Mutually Aided Co-Op Thrift & Income Tax Office Credit Society Limited Opp. Sai Baba Temple, Bose Road D.No. 22-5-60, Sarojini Naidu Street Tenali – 522201, Andhra Pradesh Tanali – 522201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aacat9757E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

3 The Tenali P & T Employees Mutually Aided Co-Op thrift & Credit Society Limited 5. We notice that the moot question to be adjudicated is with respect to condonation of delay. Broadly, we are of the view, that the Courts and the quasi- judicial bodies are empowered to condone the delay, if a litigant satisfies the Courts that there

KAKUMANU NAVEEN KUMAR,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.469 & 470/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kakumanu Naveen Kumar V. Ito – Ward – 2(1) Central Revenue Building Flat No. 201, Venkata Raghava Residency Radio Colony, Beside Med Plus Medical Shop M.G. Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada – 520008 Andhra Pradesh - 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Cmspk2757G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay, if a litigant satisfies the Courts that there was sufficient reason for availing the remedy after the expiry of limitation. Such reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The expression “sufficient cause or reasons” as provided in sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act is used in identical position in the Limitation

KAKUMANU NAVEEN KUMAR,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.469 & 470/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kakumanu Naveen Kumar V. Ito – Ward – 2(1) Central Revenue Building Flat No. 201, Venkata Raghava Residency Radio Colony, Beside Med Plus Medical Shop M.G. Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada – 520008 Andhra Pradesh - 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Cmspk2757G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay, if a litigant satisfies the Courts that there was sufficient reason for availing the remedy after the expiry of limitation. Such reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The expression “sufficient cause or reasons” as provided in sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act is used in identical position in the Limitation

SRI VINAYAKA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION WARD), 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. 120/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) Sri Vinayaka Educational Trust V. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward) Income Tax Office Panukuvalaasa Village Infinity Towers Pachipenta Mandal Sankaramatam Road Vizianagaram – 535591 Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaits1192H] (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

3 Sri Vinayaka Educational Trust and in CPC. Such expression has also been used in other sections of the Income Tax Act such as section 273, 274, etc. Keeping in mind, the authoritative pronouncement from Hon’ble Apex Court, it is admitted position that the words “sufficient cause” appearing in sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act should

BALA TRIPURA SUNDARI BOPPANA,DUBACHERLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3),, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.427/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bala Tripura Sundari Boppana V. Ito – Ward – 2(3) Central Revenue Building G-2, Sunrise Apartments M.G. Road, Vijayawada Opp. Elite School, Chebrolu Road Andhra Pradesh - 520001 Dubacherla, Nallajerla Mandal Andhra Pradesh – 534112 [Pan: Aiepb0600R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

3. 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. Page No. 2 I.T.A.No.427/VIZ/2024 Bala Tripura Sundari Boppana 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record, we notice that

THE NARSAPUR BRAHMANA SAMAKHYA,NARSAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALKOL

In the result, the appeal of the appellant society is dismissed in- limine

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A). The Reasons Given For Delayed Filing Of Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A) Are As Follows :

delay of 886 days cannot be condoned, especially, when there are no clear reasons with evidences to demonstrate that the appeal was filed with sufficient cause within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act. 7. In the result, the appeal of the appellant society is dismissed in- limine. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th February

THE ITO, WARD-1, , TENALI vs. JASTI LAKSHMAIAH, TENALI

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161 & 162/Viz/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Koganti Vijaya Kumari Ward-1, Tenali. L/R Of Late Koganti Bhavani Sankar, Tenali, Guntur Dist. Pan: Clwps0224B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.163 & 164/Viz/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Jasti Lakshmaiah, Ward-1, Tenali. Tenali, Guntur District. Pan: Agapj3292P (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guntur

253 of the Act keeping in view of the relaxation of certain provisions of specified Act extending the limitation dates by the ‘Ministry of Law & Justice’ vide Gazette Notification No. CG-DL-E-31022020-218979, dated 31/3/2020 till 30/06/2020 and the subsequent Gazette Notification No. CG-DL- E-24062020-220145, dated 24/06/2020 issued by the Ministry of Finance

THE ITO, WARD-1, , TENALI vs. JASTI LAKSHMAIAH, TENALI

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161 & 162/Viz/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Koganti Vijaya Kumari Ward-1, Tenali. L/R Of Late Koganti Bhavani Sankar, Tenali, Guntur Dist. Pan: Clwps0224B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.163 & 164/Viz/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Jasti Lakshmaiah, Ward-1, Tenali. Tenali, Guntur District. Pan: Agapj3292P (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guntur

253 of the Act keeping in view of the relaxation of certain provisions of specified Act extending the limitation dates by the ‘Ministry of Law & Justice’ vide Gazette Notification No. CG-DL-E-31022020-218979, dated 31/3/2020 till 30/06/2020 and the subsequent Gazette Notification No. CG-DL- E-24062020-220145, dated 24/06/2020 issued by the Ministry of Finance

ITO, WARD-1, , TENALI vs. SMT KOGANTI VIJAYA KUMARI L/H OF LATE KOGANTI BHAVANI SANKAR, GUNTUR

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161 & 162/Viz/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Koganti Vijaya Kumari Ward-1, Tenali. L/R Of Late Koganti Bhavani Sankar, Tenali, Guntur Dist. Pan: Clwps0224B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.163 & 164/Viz/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Jasti Lakshmaiah, Ward-1, Tenali. Tenali, Guntur District. Pan: Agapj3292P (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guntur

253 of the Act keeping in view of the relaxation of certain provisions of specified Act extending the limitation dates by the ‘Ministry of Law & Justice’ vide Gazette Notification No. CG-DL-E-31022020-218979, dated 31/3/2020 till 30/06/2020 and the subsequent Gazette Notification No. CG-DL- E-24062020-220145, dated 24/06/2020 issued by the Ministry of Finance

THE ITO, WARD-1, , TENALI vs. SMT KOGANTI VIJAYA KUMARI L/H OF LATE KOGANTI BHAVANI SANKAR, TENALI

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.161 & 162/Viz/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Koganti Vijaya Kumari Ward-1, Tenali. L/R Of Late Koganti Bhavani Sankar, Tenali, Guntur Dist. Pan: Clwps0224B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.163 & 164/Viz/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Jasti Lakshmaiah, Ward-1, Tenali. Tenali, Guntur District. Pan: Agapj3292P (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 25/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guntur

253 of the Act keeping in view of the relaxation of certain provisions of specified Act extending the limitation dates by the ‘Ministry of Law & Justice’ vide Gazette Notification No. CG-DL-E-31022020-218979, dated 31/3/2020 till 30/06/2020 and the subsequent Gazette Notification No. CG-DL- E-24062020-220145, dated 24/06/2020 issued by the Ministry of Finance

THE ETIKOPPAKA COOP AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

3 -do- 616939 15/09/2016 17/09/2019 4 -do- 689693 15/12/2016 17/01/2017 5 -do- 780771 15/01/2017 17/01/2017 6 -do- 919669 15/02/2017 17/02/2017 7 -do- 764078 15/03/2017 11/04/2017 8 -do- 361960 15/04/2017 02/05/2017 6034059 The AO disallowed Rs 60,34,059/-, invoking the amended provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order

BODURI SRINIVASA RAO,AMALAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMALAPURAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed, in limine

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.14/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs. Boduri Srinivasa Rao Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office D.No.3-122, Near Samanas Lock College Road, Konkapalli Road Amalapuram Mandal Amalapuram – 533201 East Godavari District – 533221 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aoopb3039A]

section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 19.03.2022. At the outset, it is observed from the appeal record that there is a 2. delay of 253 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has not filed any petition seeking for condonation of delay. Further, at the time of hearing of the appeal, none