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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

GIRJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (“AoP”) and has not filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17. During the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer (“learned AO”) observed that there

GIRIJAN CO-OP MARKRTING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (“AoP”) and has not filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17. During the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer (“learned AO”) observed that there

GIRIJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (“AoP”) and has not filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17. During the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer (“learned AO”) observed that there

GIRJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Association of Persons (“AoP”) and has not filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17. During the assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer (“learned AO”) observed that there

BARIGALA SAROJA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit dated 24/01/2025 and explained the reasons for such delay. For the sake of immediate reference, the contents of the said affidavit are extracted herein below: "1.......

section 249(2) r.w.s 249(3) of the Act and hence 5 Barigala Saroja vs. ITO dismissed the appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO KANCHUMARTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

274, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Validity of proceedings) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Assessee filed its return of income and Assessing Officer disallowed certain expenditure claimed by assessee for availing professional services and further disallowed a sum of certain amount on account of interest claimed by assessee under section 36(1)(iii) and made

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

SRI LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.285/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2020-21) Sri Lakshmi Constructions, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 26-3-560, Sln Towers, Income Tax, Iv Floor, Bv Nagar, Mini Bypass Central Circle-1, Road, Nellore – 524004. Guntur. Pan: Abofs2978J (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 15 days in 3 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 being a partnership firm is engaged in the business of electrical fabrication contracts. A survey operation U/s. 133A

CH RAMA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.153/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ch. Rama Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4-99, Ramavarappadu, Ward-3(4), Vijayawada-521108. Vijayawada. Pan: Aacfc0545L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 10/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm doing business of petrol bunk in the name & style of M/s. Ch. Rama Rao (Indian Oil Dealers) at Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.249/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Vijaya Durga Penumala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 74-8-20, Siri Apartments-2, Ward-2(1), Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry. Andhra Pradesh – 533103. Pan: Cxdpp1606F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 84 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 is an individual deriving income from financial consultancy and rental income. Assessee filed her return of income

SREE SIVA CHAITANYA AGRO INDUSTRIES,POLAMURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 256/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) Sree Siva Chaitanya Agro Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Industries, Ward-1, 3-81, Toorpu Peta, Polamuru, Kakinada. Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Acsfs5787Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Gangaraju Sarma, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 13/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condone the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm, e-filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17 on 31/03/2017 by declaring a total income

RAYALA RAJESWARA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.239/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Rayala Rajeswara Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Ancpr 0801 R Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, is engaged the business activity by operating a Xerox Shop and e-filed his return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 31/07/2017 declaring a total income