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)

condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

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 delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

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 delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

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 delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

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 delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

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 delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

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 delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial

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

condone the delay of 606 days and admit the appeal hearing and its disposal. 5.7. The Assessee in support of its application also filed its affidavit, wherein submitted that ld. Pr.CIT, Vijayawada vide revision order dated 16/03/2018 passed u/sec. 263 of the Act, set aside the assessment dated 14/03/2016 framed by the DCIT, u/sec

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

condone the delay of 606 days and admit the appeal hearing and its disposal. 5.7. The Assessee in support of its application also filed its affidavit, wherein submitted that ld. Pr.CIT, Vijayawada vide revision order dated 16/03/2018 passed u/sec. 263 of the Act, set aside the assessment dated 14/03/2016 framed by the DCIT, u/sec

MANNE KRISHNA KISHORE,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in-limine

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

51,54,000 – Rs. 47,25,653/-); (ii) addition of Rs. 4,59,250/- being undisclosed investment towards purchase of three plots at Yandada and Rajahmundry and the payment of stamp duty. Thus, the Ld. AO completed the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act and assessed the total income at Rs. 56,13,250/-. Aggrieved by the order

SRIKANTH ATLURI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TXA OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.491/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) Srikanth Atluri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 30-13/1-18, Durgaagraharam Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpa5568H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 51 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, assessee being a Non-Resident Individual filed his return of income on 30.09.2021 admitting a total income of Rs. 31,51,720/- for the A.Y. 2021-22. While

VARDHANAPU MANIKUMARI OF LATE EARNEST CHRISTOPHER VARDHANAPU,BHIMAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, 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.256/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Smt.Vardhanapu Manikumari Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Earnest Christopher Ward-1 Vardhanapu Bhimavaram D.No.21-16-30A Dora Bangalow Mission Compound, West Godavari [Pan : Aeepv0600F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

51 days. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s husband, Shri Earnest Christopher Vardhanapu stated to have worked as pastor with Andhra Evangelical Luthern Church, Guntur was in receipt of 300 sq.yds of land, valued at Rs.75

KONDA VENKATESWARA REDDY,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the 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.146/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Konda Venkateswara Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.44-15-97 Ward-3(3) Lenin Nagar, Gunadala Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Akmpv9138J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Karthik Manickam, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada Dated 10.02.2020 With The Delay Of 34 Days For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Stating That The Delay Was Due To Covid-19 Pandemic & Lockdown Declared By The State Government. There Was No Malafide Intention In Filing The Appeal

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, did not file his return of income for the A.Y.2016-17 u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). Based on the information available on record, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the assessee

KOSANAM RAMA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 10. We have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 11. Before proceeding

MAHALAKSHMI SANAGALA,VUYYURU vs. INOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 147 after noticing a cash deposit of Rs. 51,00,000/-. The assessee eventually filed a return declaring income of Rs. 5,93,450/-.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the 41-day delay

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD (PRESENTLY MERGED WITH SBI),VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bank are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 382 & 383/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) State Bank Of Hyderabad Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Presently Merged With (Tds), State Bank Of India), Tds Ward-1, South Central Railway Vijayawada. Branch, Near Railway Station, Vijayawada- 520001. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Smt. Venkata Suseela, Advocate (For Sri M.V. Prasad, Ca) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. 13. Smt. Venkata Suseela, Advocate, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that both the lower authorities had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in treating the assessee as being in default even

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD ( PRESENTLY MERGED WITH SBI),VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bank are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 382 & 383/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) State Bank Of Hyderabad Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Presently Merged With (Tds), State Bank Of India), Tds Ward-1, South Central Railway Vijayawada. Branch, Near Railway Station, Vijayawada- 520001. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Smt. Venkata Suseela, Advocate (For Sri M.V. Prasad, Ca) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. 13. Smt. Venkata Suseela, Advocate, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that both the lower authorities had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in treating the assessee as being in default even

SRI KRISHNA GENERAL TRADING COMPANY,PONNURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.614/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Sri Krishna General Trading Vs. Income Tax Officer, Company, Ward-1, Ponnuru, Guntur Dist. Bapatla. Pan: Aaifs 3783 L (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar

Section 14 of Limitation Act.” 5. On perusal of the reasons adduced by the assessee for the delay of 114 days in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit, we are of the view that though the explanation given by the assessee cannot be appreciated, taking a lenient view and in the interest of justice, we hereby condone