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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condone the delay of 106 days in\nfiling the appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for\nadjudication.\n6.\nThe brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an\nindividual carrying business in purchases and sale of paddy and\nfiled his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 19-\n10-2015, declaring income

BOLLINA SIVARAMA KRISHNA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.28/Viz/2022 & 30/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Bollina Sivarama Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.78-15-5 Ward-2(1) G-1, Rk Towers Rajahmundry Sastry Hospital Road Rajahmundry [Pan : Aiupb4182C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasad Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Rajamahendravaram In Ita No.10005/2018-19/Cit(A)/Rjy & 10151/2017-18/Cit(A)/Rjy Dated 12.12.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 With The Delay Of 735 Days. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Was Passed On 12.12.2019, As 2

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 on 19.11.2015, admitting total income of Rs.2,17,650/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine huge cash deposits more than the turnover. During the course

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

unexplained money and estimated business receipts. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay

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

delay of 23 days due to the assessee traveling to the USA. The appeals were clubbed as grounds were identical. For AY 2015-16, the addition was on account of 'on-money' from property sale, and for AY 2020-21, it was for unexplained jewellery.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned

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

VELAGA SIVA PARVATHI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

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

unexplained money.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal due to the assessee's husband

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

unexplained money\nunder section 69A of the Act and framed the assessment vide his order passed under\nsection 143(3) of the Act, dated 03.12.2019.\nPage. No 2\nI.T.A.No.428/VIZ/2025\nSriLakshmi Devireddy-\n4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the impugned assessment order before the\nCIT(A) but without success.\n5. The assessee, aggrieved with the order

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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:

unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and determined the total income at Rs. 81,04,188/- and passed the order U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 06/02/2024f. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 124 days. 3. On appeal

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

unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and added to the same to the total income of the assessee and taxed the same U/s. 115BBE of the Act @ 60% of the Tax. Thus, the Ld. AO completed the assessment U/s. 144 of the Act and assessed the total income at Rs. 31,69,500/- and passed the assessment order dated

PONIPIREDDY RAJYALAKSHMI,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ELURU

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

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

unexplained money. Thus, the Ld. AO passed the assessment order dated 29/03/2024 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 47,15,106/-. The Ld. AO also initiated the 3 Ponipireddy Rajyalakshmi vs. ITO penalty proceedings separately. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) belatedly with

SRI SATYANARAYANA FERTILIZERS,VIZAINAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 536/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Satyanarayana Fertilizers, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram. Ward-1, Pan:Aaifs2692G Vizianagaram. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

unexplained money U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, the Ld. AO also made 3 addition of Rs. 26,298/- towards interest income received. Thus, the Ld. AO completed the assessment U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee

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.......

unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and made the addition vide the assessment order dated 31/10/2019 passed U/s. 144 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 402 days. 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee explained

THE ANDHRA PRADESH MERCANTILE MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE THRIFT&CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.104/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Andhra Pradesh Mercantile Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift Ward-1(1) & Credit Society Limited, Vijayawada. D.No. 11-13-1, Subbarammayya Street, Janda Chettu Road, Vijayawada – 520001. Pan: Aadat 6013 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 26/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and assessed the income U/s. 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 88,34,98,500/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 143(3) of the Act on 30/12/2019. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

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

condone the delay of 381\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 being an individual filed his\nreturn of income on 31.03.2018 admitting a total income of Rs.3,10,020/-. The\ncase was selected for complete scrutiny through

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

unexplained money U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,23,41,750/- against the returned income of Rs. 3,49,250/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022. The Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings

MADHAVARAO YARRAKULA,TENALI vs. ITO, WARD I, TENALI, TENALI

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. 244/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Madhavarao Yarrakula, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tenali. Ward-1, Pan: Akxyp5376N Tenali. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Dl Narasimha Rao, 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:

unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act in the absence of any explanation from the assessee in respect of the source of the cash deposits made in his bank account. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of 3 Madhavarao Yarrakula the assessee at Rs. 50,87,000/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 144 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B

JAMI PRADHAMIKA VYAVASAYASHARAKARA PARAPATHI SANGHAM LTD.,,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 206/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Jami Pradhamika Vyavasaya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakara Parapathi Vizianagaram. Sanghamltd., Vizianagaram. Pan: Aabaj1927F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act. The Ld. DR further submitted that before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC even though there is a delay, the onus is on the assessee to explain each day’s delay with proper evidence. The Ld. DR also submitted that since the assessee has not discharged his onus, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC