NANDYALA NAGA VENKATA RAJU,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANAKU

56,41,000/- [including cash deposits] in the assessee's bank account\nwith ICICI Bank bearing account NO. 044005001458 but he had not filed his return of\nincome for the subject year, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice\nunder section 148 of the Act dated 23.03.2021 was issued by the A.O. However, the\nassessee did not file

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

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)

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.75,00,000/- as gift on 28.05.2013 without

ANIL KUMAR VELLAGA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

56,57,819/- by making addition of Rs.3,03,30,894/-\nunder section 69A of the Act and Rs.8,62,055/- as addition on account of\ndisallowances of Exemption / deduction under the head salary income and\nRs.1,44,64,870/- as addition on account of lottery income under the head\nincome from other sources.\n3. On being aggrieved

SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

condone the delay of 161 days involved in filing the present appeal by the\nassessee before the Tribunal.\n10. Coming to the merits of the case, I find that as the assessee had failed to come\nforth with any explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 11,00,000/-\nmade in her bank account, therefore

VATTIKUTI VEERA VENKATA PRASAD,RAMACHANDRAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

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.280/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Shop-03, Ramachandra Puram Ward-1 Ramachandrapuram Mandal Kakinada East Godavari [Pan : Akqpv2779M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

56 days. He, submitted that the delay in filing the appeal belatedly was not as a result of any negligence or lack of diligence, but solely due to the unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances surrounding his health. He attached doctor’s certificate in support of his petition, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. We have

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

THE ANIGANDLAPADU PACS LTD,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD(1)1 VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

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.300/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) The Anigandlapadu Pacs Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer 10-1, Anigandlapadu Village Ward-1(1) Penuganchiprolu Post Vijayawada Penuganchiprolu Mandal Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aacat7983Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, provides credit facilities to it’s members i.e. sanction of crop loans out of deposits collected from it’s members. It also provides services i.e. supply of fertilisers and manures, marketing

JAIN BABULAL CHAMPATLAL,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.400 & 401/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Jain Babulal Champatlal Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex 40-1-155, Lgf Mg Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aefpc1220F]

section 270A of the Act and simultaneously imposed the penalty of Rs.8,56,824/- being 200% of the amount of tax payable on misreported income and passed the order dated 26.03.2022. 3. On being aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred two appeals i.e., one appeal against the quantum addition and the other appeal against

JAIN BABULAL CHAMPATLAL,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are 9

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.400 & 401/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Jain Babulal Champatlal Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex 40-1-155, Lgf Mg Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Ripples Mall, M.G. Road Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada-520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aefpc1220F]

section 270A of the Act and simultaneously imposed the penalty of Rs.8,56,824/- being 200% of the amount of tax payable on misreported income and passed the order dated 26.03.2022. 3. On being aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred two appeals i.e., one appeal against the quantum addition and the other appeal against

GUMMADI SARASWATHI,TENALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 375/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Gummadi Saraswathi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 1 C/O. Ca Mv Prasad Income Tax Office First Floor D.No. 19-15-47 Opposite Prasad & Co Contractors Opp. Sai Baba Temple D.No. 6-3-871, Snehalata Tenali – 522201 Greenlands Road, Begumpet Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad – 500016 [Pan:Amapg7100K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

condone the delay of 94 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 an individual filed her return of income for the A.Y.2016-17 on 05.12.2018 admitting a total income of Rs.2,27,030/-. The case of the assessee

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

56,277/-; and (iii) deduction under section 24(b): Rs.77,990/-. However, the Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao CIT(A) did not find favor with the contentions advanced by the assessee and dismissed his appeal. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee has carried the matter in appeal before us. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

56,277/-; and (iii) deduction under section 24(b): Rs.77,990/-. However, the Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao CIT(A) did not find favor with the contentions advanced by the assessee and dismissed his appeal. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee has carried the matter in appeal before us. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both

JAYBHERI ENTERPRISES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.410/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) Jaybheri Enterprises, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaofj1639A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Mn. Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 30/09/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 11/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income

section 250(6) of the IT Act which obligates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had made contractual payments of Rs. 1,10,43,654/- and Rs. 4,48,43,233/- to sub-contracts, after deducting tax at source in compliance with

INDIRA RANI MULPURI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Tribunal, Which Caused The Delay. She Further Submitted That The Delay Was Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate, Therefore, Pleaded To Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing In The Interest Of Justice.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file her return of income for the A.Y.2017-18. It was observed by the department that the assessee has made cash deposits in her bank account during the F.Y.2016-17 amounting to Rs.19

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

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