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

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:

unexplained money under section 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

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

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

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

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

unexplained money under section 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

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

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

condoning the delay in filing of the appeal without considering the submissions made by the Assessee. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) by not adjudicating the issue on merits erred in confirming the addition made by the AO in income estimated

KOMPELLA RAMA SUBRAHMANYA SARMA,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 22/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kompella Rama Subrahmanya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sarma, Ward-2, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Bqzpk 4682 G (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

unexplained money U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and determined the total income at Rs. 19,64,360/- in the assessment order passed on 30/11/2019. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal belatedly before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 84 days. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC the assessee

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

unexplained money under 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

BODA RAMASATYANARAYANA,DRAKSHARAMAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

unexplained money under section 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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHARIEF AZIZULLA,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department and the cross objection filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

delay stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 5. Now coming to the merits of the case. Having heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Facts are already illustrated/narrated by the ld. Commissioner in its order, hence, for the sake of brevity not being repeated herein. 5.1. The Revenue Department has raised the following grounds