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

5. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The law is well settled by the Higher Courts that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay, the Court is to see the conduct of the party and plausible reasoning for non filing of the statutory appeal within time. The primary function of a court

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

5. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The law is well settled by the Higher Courts that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay, the Court is to see the conduct of the party and plausible reasoning for non filing of the statutory appeal within time. The primary function of a court

OMMI SANDEEP,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

delay of 24 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal due to the assessee's medical condition. The core issue is the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) when no return of income was filed under Section 139(1).", "held": "The Tribunal held that to claim any deduction, including under Section 80P, it is mandatory to file

KUNKULAGUNTA MALLIKARJUNA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

5. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in upholding the addition made by Assessing officer of Rs.34,00,000/- u/s.68 rws 115BBBE towards cash deposits into Canara Bank account, which is bad at law as section 69 is not applicable for cash deposits into bank account. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in upholding

NO H 1043 BHUJABALAPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal. The Petitioner/Appellant Society Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Wherein It Was Submitted That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Was Sent To The Email Of Its Then Ar, Ca B.V. Rao, Instead Of Its Email "Krishnapacs085@Gmail.Com," As Had Been Requested By It. The Appellant Society Came To Know Of The Order Only When Itd Officials Called Upon It To Pay The Tax Arrears. It Further Submitted That, Due To The Above Circumstances Beyond Its Control & Prayed That The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal May Please Be Condoned In The Interest Of Justice & That The Appeal Be Decided On Merits.

2. At the outset, there is a delay of 69 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The petitioner/appellant society has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, wherein it was submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was sent to the email of its then

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

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

PANDALAPAKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,EAST GODAVARI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

2 & 3 are dismissed.\n\n15. On merits, Ld.AR argued that with respect to Ground No. 4 by stating\nthat the assessee has filed return of income in response to notice under section\n148 of the Act belatedly and therefore entitled for deduction under section\n80P of the Act. Ld.AR therefore pleaded to delete the disallowances of the\nclaim

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:

section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any appeal or any application, ……………..may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. It implies that the delay of each day needs to be justified and there must

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:

section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any appeal or any application, ……………..may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. It implies that the delay of each day needs to be justified and there must

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

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 of delay which is as under:-. "There is a delay 1501 days due to non availability or non communication of intimation u/s 143(1). The same is visible in the portal

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)

5. 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. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The reasons for delay in filing the appeal before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

delay is condoned. 3. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 1,75,34,760/- u/s. 13(1)(c). 3) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

delay is condoned. 3. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 1,75,34,760/- u/s. 13(1)(c). 3) Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts

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

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)

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 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

SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

condone the delay of 346\ndays in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the\nappeal on merits in the following paragraphs.\n4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a cooperative society registered\nunder AP State Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act 1995 and has been\ncarrying the business of credit among the members

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)

2 I.T.A.No.469 & 470/VIZ/2024 Kakumanu Naveen Kumar pleaded that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee in the interest of justice. 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

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)

2 I.T.A.No.469 & 470/VIZ/2024 Kakumanu Naveen Kumar pleaded that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee in the interest of justice. 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