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

condone the delay of 106 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual carrying business in purchases and sale of paddy and filed his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 19- 10-2015, declaring income

LAKSHMI NARAYANA KOTHA,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condonation. Regarding the 4-day delay before the CIT(A), the Tribunal found the delay to be small and the assessee was willing to file an application if given an opportunity. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "142(1)", "69A

GANESH KUMAR PAIDI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 7. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.07.2017, declaring an income of Rs. 7,21,890/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny of assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. 8. During the course of assessment

JANAKI RAM BABJI RAO ANNAM,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 92/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-3(1), Pan: Aecpa4464Q Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

condone the delay of 11 days in 3 filing the appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income electronically on 09/12/2017 declaring a total income

PADARTHI VENKATA SIVANAGENDRA PRASADA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

delay due to severe back pain. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147, issuing a notice under section 148, which was later deemed a show-cause notice under section 148A(b). The assessee filed a return, but the AO added Rs. 1,12,13,500 as unexplained money under section 69A.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned

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

69A", "148A(b)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating a specific ground challenging the validity of the notice under section 148 of the Act, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned

VALLABHAI PATEL KOTTAPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

condoned the delay, accepting the assessee's explanation. The main issue was the applicability of the higher tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, as amended, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Tribunal followed the Madras High Court's decision favoring the assessee, holding that the pre-amended rate of 30% should apply.", "result

KANDIPALLI APPALA RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

condoned the delay.", "held": "The ITAT held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to sufficient cause beyond the appellant's control. The ex-parte order was passed due to the assessee's non-appearance. The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case on merits.", "result": "Allowed for statistical purposes", "sections": [ "250", "69A

RAMESH POTNURU,SRIKAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay of 111 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.317/VIZ/2025 4 “ That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, and in accordance with the assessment, it has been grossly erred in assessing an addition of Rs.3

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["143(3)", "142(1)", "132(1)", "69A"], "issues": "Whether the reasons provided by the assessee

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2015-16, the addition of Rs. 45,58,500/- was upheld. For AY 2020-21, the addition of Rs. 27,29,450/- for unexplained jewellery was also upheld, and the benefit of telescoping was denied.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "153A", "144", "143(2)", "69A

DATLA TRUPATHI RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

condone the delay of 23\ndays in the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on\nmerits in the following paragraphs.\n21.\nBrief facts of the case are that, assessee is an Executive Chairman of\nM/s.Vijayanagar Biotech Group and filed his return of income for the\nA.Y.2020-21 on 22.03.2021 admitting a total income of Rs.31

GULIPALLI SATISH,BOBBILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 413/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gulipalli Satish, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bobbili. Ward-1, Pan: Cbnpg3883K Vizianagaram. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

section 148A(d) of the Act. Thereafter, notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 07/11/2023 calling for the details. However, the assessee has not submitted any details. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued a show cause notice U/s. 144 of the Act on 19/12/2023, however, the assessee did not submit any details. Further, another show cause notice

SITARAMA RAJU PENUMATSA,JARAJAPETA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.183/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sitarama Raju Penumatsa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-363-1443, Santhoshimatha Ward-2, Nagar, Jarajapeta, Nellimarla, Vizianagaram. Vizianagaram District-535217, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Awfpp2521A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

condonation of delay of 84 days and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The impugned appellate order dated 12/03/2024 passed U/s. 250 of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC

KORADA RAJU,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, VIZIANAGARM

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

condoned the delay of 381 days, acknowledging that it was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to be heard.", "result": "Remanded", "sections": [ "143(3)", "133(6)", "142(1)", "69A

BARIGALA SAROJA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit dated 24/01/2025 and explained the reasons for such delay. For the sake of immediate reference, the contents of the said affidavit are extracted herein below: "1.......

condone the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 3 Barigala Saroja vs. ITO 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee an individual. On verification of the AIMS Module of ITBA, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee made substantial cash deposits during

SRINIVASA RAO SIRIVURI PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

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

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

section 69A of the Act and determined the income at Rs.89,57,554/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, it is noticed from the record that

BODA RAMASATYANARAYANA,DRAKSHARAMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

69A of the Act. 4. Further, the A.O observed that the assessee during the subject year had in his bank accounts made total cash deposits of Rs. 2,23,73,000/. The AO, after reducing the amount of cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account during the demonetization period amounting to Rs. 16.35 lacs (supra), held