SRI TIRUMALA ESTATES AND FARMLANDS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

35 could not be filed on or before the time limit prescribed under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. 10. Therefore, I humbly request your Honour to kindly condone the delay

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 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

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

condoning the delay, even though the Ld. CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity of hearing, which is evident from paras 2.2 and 2.3 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), where the case was posted for hearing on five occasions, and also directed the assessee to explain the delay in filing of the appeal. Since the assessee could not explain

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

condoning the delay, even though the Ld. CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity of hearing, which is evident from paras 2.2 and 2.3 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), where the case was posted for hearing on five occasions, and also directed the assessee to explain the delay in filing of the appeal. Since the assessee could not explain

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:

Section 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

LAKSHMI NARAYANA KOTHA,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

35 filed by the assessee,\nwhere the assessee admitted delay of four days and also\nundertook to file petition for condonation of delay explaining the\nreasons. However, despite issuance of notices on multiple\noccasions, the assessee neither filed an application for\ncondonation of delay nor explained the reasons for the delay in\nfiling of the appeal. Before us, the Learned

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)

section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 01.05.2020. 2. 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 526 days in filing the appeal stating that submissions are vague and dismissed the appeal

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

35,810 and demand of Rs.5,31,486 raised towards interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 8. 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

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

SUPERINTENDENT OF JAILS CENTRAL PRISION,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals (I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.194, 195 & 196/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Ays: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Superintendent Of Jails, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Prison, Tds Ward-1, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaags 7227 N (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 11/05/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: The Captioned Appeals (I.T.A. No.194, 195 & 196/Viz/2021) Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Separate Orders Dated 17/03/2021 For The Ays 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together

35,031/- charged U/s. 220(2) of the Act. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that for the AYs 2013-14, 2014- 15 & 2015-16, the assessee has filed TDS Quarterly returns in Form No.24Q beyond due date specified under the Act. Subsequently

SUPERINTENDENT OF JAILS CENTRAL PRISION,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals (I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.194, 195 & 196/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Ays: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Superintendent Of Jails, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Prison, Tds Ward-1, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaags 7227 N (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 11/05/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: The Captioned Appeals (I.T.A. No.194, 195 & 196/Viz/2021) Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Separate Orders Dated 17/03/2021 For The Ays 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together

35,031/- charged U/s. 220(2) of the Act. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that for the AYs 2013-14, 2014- 15 & 2015-16, the assessee has filed TDS Quarterly returns in Form No.24Q beyond due date specified under the Act. Subsequently

SUPERINTENDENT OF JAILS CENTRAL PRISION,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals (I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.194, 195 & 196/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Ays: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Superintendent Of Jails, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Prison, Tds Ward-1, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaags 7227 N (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 11/05/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: The Captioned Appeals (I.T.A. No.194, 195 & 196/Viz/2021) Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Separate Orders Dated 17/03/2021 For The Ays 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together

35,031/- charged U/s. 220(2) of the Act. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that for the AYs 2013-14, 2014- 15 & 2015-16, the assessee has filed TDS Quarterly returns in Form No.24Q beyond due date specified under the Act. Subsequently

BAYYE CHANDRA KUMAR,WEST GODAVARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Us:

condonation of the delay, dated 20.05.2025, along with supporting affidavit of even date. The Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee had filed the appeal against the order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3), dated 12.12.2019, before the CIT(A) within the prescribed period i.e on 06.01.2020, but thereafter, he had opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme

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

section 263 of the Act and passed the order on 27/11/2015. In the order U/s. 263 of the Act, the Ld. Pr. CIT set-aside the assessment made by the Ld. AO and directed the Ld. AO to re-do the assessment after making enquiries with regard to cash payments made by the assessee towards lorry hire charges

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

THE CHINAOGIRALA PACS LTD,CHINAOGIRALA VILLAGE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GUDIVADA, GUDIVADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.296/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) The Chinaogirala Pacs Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chinaogirala Village, Ward-1, Vuyyuru Mandal, Gudivada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521301. Andha Pradesh-521245. Pan: Aacat 8188 M (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condoning the delay in filing the appeal though the delay was due to the circumstances beyond the control and with no comments on the grounds of appeal. The Andhra Pradesh high court held in the case of Pinjari Khasim v Chanda Saheb, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 698, decided on 28-03-2023 that “…. ordinarily the litigation should not be terminated

KADULURI RAJITH,NAGULAPALLI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 500/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Rajith Kuduluri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward -1 D.No. 4-85, Nagupalli, Main Road Income Tax Office, 3Rd Floor U. Kothapalli Mandal, Deepthi Towers, Main Road Kakinada – 533447, Andhra Pradesh Kakinada – 533001 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Ebnpk0302R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”], for the A.Y. 2018-19. I.T.A. No. 500/VIZ/2025 Kuduluri Ranjith 2. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we find that, in the present case

BODA RAMASATYANARAYANA,DRAKSHARAMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

35,000/- as having been sourced out of the assessee’s unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 4. Further, the A.O observed that the assessee during the subject year had in his bank accounts made total cash deposits of Rs. 2,23,73,000/. The AO, after reducing the amount of cash deposits made by the assessee