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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Srilakshmi Devireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5) D.No. 9-58, Loyabata Road Nunna, Vijayawada – 521212 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bjupd8440D] Vijayawada करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Per Ravish Sood, Jm: आदेश /Order The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 12.11.2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 03.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

69A of the Act and framed the assessment vide his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 03.12.2019. Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.428/VIZ/2025 SriLakshmi Devireddy- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the impugned assessment order before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter

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

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

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

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

69A of the Act. 5. Apropos, the balance amount of Rs. 12,13,34,918/- [Rs.14,42,41,478/- Rs.2,29,06,560/-] the A.O held the same as the business receipts of the assessee on which he computed his income @8% i.e., Rs.97,06,793/-. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 rw.s 144B

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

SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA STONE CRUSHERS,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

delay is condoned. 5. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - Page No. 2 I.T.A. No.495/VIZ/2025 Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Stone Crushers “1. The order of the Learned Assessing Officer (AO), as upheld by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"], is erroneous in law and on the facts of the case

CHANDRA BOSU BABU RAMESH YANGALA,GUDIVADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIVADA

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.214/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Chandra Bosu Babu Ramesh Yangala Asst. City Planner Gudiwada, Andhra Pradesh Gudivada Municipality Gudivada – 521301 Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Acspy1662Q] (अपीलधर्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri K. Siva Rama Kumar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condone the delay of 144 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, based on the information available with the department, it was observed that the assessee made cash deposits in Axis Bank, Rajahmundry, HDFC Bank, Worli Sea Face, HDFC

CHAITANYA LEARNING ZONE PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

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’Bleआयकरअऩीऱसं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2021 (ननधधारणवषा/ Assessment Year :2017-18) M/S. Chaitanya Learning Zone Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt Ltd., Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaecc 6869 J (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri Ss Sarat Chandra, Advocate प्रत्यधथीकीओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasadarao, Sr. Ar

section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 206 days. Before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee filed submissions seeking condonation of delay wherein it was stated that since the assessee’s office was shifted to a new location, the assessee

SAMBASIVA RAO MUPPERA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR., GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.156/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Sambasiva Rao Muppera, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(1), Pan: Dcdpm0224C Guntur. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

section 133(6) of the Act. However, the neither the assessee nor the bank authorities furnishd any information as called for by the Ld.AO. Therefore, the Ld. AO issued a show cause notice dated 23/03/2022 was issued in the form of draft 4 assessment order and in response to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted his reply. On perusal

VEERABHADRA RAO MOLLETI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.161/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Veerabhadra Rao Molleti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Aghpm 1625 Q Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Ramprasad Tnssjms, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 31/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

condone the delay of 90 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, having income from ‘salary’ filed his original return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 8/8/2017 declaring an income of Rs. 3,72,970/-. The case

ALURI YOGENDRA KUMAR L/R OF LATE ALURI MADHUSUDHANA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. On the basis of information received that the assessee had deposited cash during the demonetization period, notice under section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Assessee failed

SANJUKTA VARANASI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.225/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1(3) Sanjukta Varanasi D.No. 49-46-4/30 Income Tax Office Ramakrishna Nagar Pratyakshakar Bhavan Near Jaggarao Bridge Mvp Double Road Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam – 530017 Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afspv9008E] (अपीलधर्थी/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 the delay of 166 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 during the demonetization period has made cash deposits into the bank account but has not filed any return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. Hence

SUDHEER CHAMARTHI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.216/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Sudheer Chamarthi Vs. Income Tax Officer 12-17-36/1, Somuvari Street Ward-1(1) Kothapet Guntur Guntur [Pan : Axnpc8454A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021- 22/1041354665(1) Dated 23.03.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2017-18 With The Delay Of 163 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit, Submitting That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Was Uploaded In E-Filing Portal & It Was Not Served Physically. The Assessee Submitted That All His Income Tax Matters Were Entrusted To A Chartered Accountant, Who Did

section should not be levied for the addition sustained by the Ld.CIT(A). The time for filing appeal before the Tribunal expired as on 22.05.2022. Not satisfied with the services of the Chartered Accountant, the assessee approached another Advocate who advised that an appeal lies against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and accordingly, the assessee filed appeal which