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)

Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by an order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the A.O. Once again, the said appeal was filed on 19.10.2024 with a delay of 966 days. The assessee has explained the reasons by filing petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit and attributed the delay to ignorance of income tax proceedings

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

4. On the contrary, ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee and specifically submitted that filing of the instant appeal with application for condonation of delay is an afterthought and therefore this appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine with heavy costs. 5. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The law is well settled

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

4. On the contrary, ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee and specifically submitted that filing of the instant appeal with application for condonation of delay is an afterthought and therefore this appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine with heavy costs. 5. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The law is well settled

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

delay, the same cannot be condoned. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. Page. No 8 I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 Audrey Bernice Roy 5. I have heard the Learned authorised representatives of both parties and perused the orders

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

4. Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, did not strongly oppose the condonation of delay in view of the genuine and unforeseen circumstances explained by the assessee. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 106 days in filing

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

4. Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, did not strongly oppose the condonation of delay in view of the genuine and unforeseen circumstances explained by the assessee. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 106 days in filing

SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS CO LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.233/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Producers Co. Ltd, Income Tax (Osd), Visakhapatnam. Central Circle-2, Pan: Aajcs 7398 P Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

4. That later I was advised by a legal consultant to file an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT for relief but the appeal has already become barred by time limitation. Nevertheless, the appeal was filed before this Hon’ble ITAT on 11/11/2021 accompanied by an application for condonation of delay as provided under section

ANAND KUMAR ADARI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.232/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Anand Kumar Adari, Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax (Osd), Pan: Adlpa 1847 P Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

4. That later I was advised by a legal consultant to file an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT for relief but the appeal has already become barred by time limitation. Nevertheless the appeal was filed before this Hon’ble ITAT on 11/11/2021 accompanied by an application for condonation of delay as provided under section

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)

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 23.02.2024. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 212 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew our attention

ADIMULAM SATYANARAYANA PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

condoned the delay and allowed him to file his return of income under section 139(4) r.w.s 119(2)(b) of the Act for the subject

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

section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 31.01.2020. Sri Vinayaka Educational Trust 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 991 days in filing the appeal stating that submissions are vague

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:

condone the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing. 3. Succinctly stated, the A.O., based on information received from the Income Tax Officer (Investigation), Unit–4, Vijayawada, vide his letter dated 04.02.2019, observed that the assessee had made cash deposits

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

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)

4. 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. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record, we notice that the moot question to be adjudicated is with respect

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)

4. 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. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record, we notice that the moot question to be adjudicated is with respect

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 1.1. Since the facts are identical, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in common order for the sake of convenience. The Revenue has raised the common grounds for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that all the grounds

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 1.1. Since the facts are identical, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in common order for the sake of convenience. The Revenue has raised the common grounds for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that all the grounds

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , GUNTUR vs. BHARATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.197/Viz/2020 To 201/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14 To 2017-18) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Bharathi Consumer Care Income Tax Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1 11/25, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Gorantla, Guntur [Pan : Aadcb9107B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam In Appeal Nos.314 To 318 /2019-20/Cit(A)-3/Vsp/2020-21 Dated 31.07.2020 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14 To 2017-18. The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue With The Delay Of 3 Days Along With Condonation Petition Stating Administrative Reasons & Requested To Condone The Delay.

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the revenue. 1.1. Since the facts are identical, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in common order for the sake of convenience. The Revenue has raised the common grounds for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that all the grounds