ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condone the delay of 11 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and we proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the Revenue has raised the identical grounds, we shall take up ITA No. 226/Viz/2022 as a lead appeal. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the AY 2018-19. “1. The order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condone the delay of 11 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and we proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Since the Revenue has raised the identical grounds, we shall take up ITA No. 226/Viz/2022 as a lead appeal. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the AY 2018-19. “1. The order

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)

II of the Sugandhavanam project. Up to the date of survey, the firm had sold a total area of 59,450 sq. yards since March 2014. The average sale price per sq. yard was Rs.1,743/-. Further, after analysing the impounded material, the average sale price was worked out to Rs.1,793/- per sq. yard. Thus, there is a difference

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)

II of the Sugandhavanam project. Up to the date of survey, the firm had sold a total area of 59,450 sq. yards since March 2014. The average sale price per sq. yard was Rs.1,743/-. Further, after analysing the impounded material, the average sale price was worked out to Rs.1,793/- per sq. yard. Thus, there is a difference

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:

35” that, as during the relevant period he was suffering from ill health due to jaundice and typhoid, therefore, for the said reason the filing of the appeal was delayed by a period of 32 days. However, we find that the CIT(A) had declined to condone the delay on the ground that the assessee had failed to come forth

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

ii) The terms sufficient cause should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), , VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

ii) The terms sufficient cause should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 6. Succinctly stated, the assessee company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing cattle feed and seeds, had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 26.04.2008, declaring a loss of (-) Rs. 1,59,44,684/-. The return of income was initially processed as such

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

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

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

condone the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. As per the information available with the Department, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has deposited cash

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

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

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

condone the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. As per the information available with the Department, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has deposited cash

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:

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the Grounds of Appeal. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought

SRI SURYA ANJANEYA INDUSTRIES,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. Sri Surya Anjaneya Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Industries, D.No. 108/12, Vizianagaram. Opp.Fire Station, K.L.Puram, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram. Pan No. Abgfs 0809 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

35(2AB) of the Act. Based on this, the learned CIT(A) vide order dt. 02.01.2017 had directed the assessing officer to reduce the penalty to the extent of addition sustained. 7. The condition of the partner Smt P. Satya Shanti (M/s. Sri Surya Anjaneya Industries) became critical during the month of January 2017 and she was taken to Apollo

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 2(1), GUNTUR vs. TULASI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.169/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Tulasi Seeds Private Limited 3Rd Floor, Standard House, Beside Sbi Door No. 6-4-6, Tulasi House Nagarampalem, Guntur – 522004 4/5 Arundelpet, Guntur Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Aaact8054C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee being Private Limited Company engaged in the business of production and marketing of hybrid sowing seeds, filed its return of income

GANGUNAIDU SABBAVARAPU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHPATNAM

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 5. The assessee has filed with us an application for admission of certain additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which comprises of the following documents: (i). Order issued by NHAI for Award under compulsory acquisition of land from assessee dt. 04.02.2022. (ii). Purchase

BODA RAMASATYANARAYANA,DRAKSHARAMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

1)(i) of the Act dated 29.01.2018 and called upon him to file his return of income for the subject year. However, the assessee failed to comply with the aforesaid notice and did not file his return of income as was called upon by the A.O. Thereafter the A.O had issued a notice under section