VENKATA LAKSHMI PADMAVATHI UPPALAPU,VIJAYAWADA vs. ITO, WARD - 2(3), VIJAYAWADA

Unexplained Money) Section 69A is\napplicable only when the source of money is unsubstantiated or false. In this case:\nThe appellant has clearly explained the source as agricultural income. There is\nno contrary evidence from the department to show the income is fictitious. Hence,\ninvoking Section 69A is unjustified Supporting Judgment: N.K.Maheshwariv. ITO\n(Rajasthan HC): Held that

NAKKA KASIVISWESWARA RAO,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 278/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Nakka Kasivisweswara Rao V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) Income Tax Office #7-155 Aayakar Bhavan Kadiyapulanka Village Veerabhadrapuram Kadiyam Mandal Kambala Cheruvu East Godavari District-533126 Rajahmundry-533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aenpn2596K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowed the balance amount of Rs.10,26,289/- and added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money

ALLADI KRISHNA PRASAD,MANDALAPARRU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , TADEPALLIGUDEM

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.172/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Alladi Krishna Prasad V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Aayakar Bhawan D.No. 3-73, Mandalaparru D.No. 2-1-56/1 Nidamarru Mandal Opp. Punjab National Bank West Godavari – 534198 K.N. Road, Tadepalligudem – 534101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bcjpa7058L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

unexplained money u/s.69A of the I.T.Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal on the pretext that no evidences were furnished in support of grounds of appeal while submitting the written⁠submissions even though the same were duly submitted to the CIT(A), Rajahmundry manually before faceless scheme

VAKA GHANTA NAGESWARARAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, TENALI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.251/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao 4-82-A, Gullapalli Tenali -522201 Goudapalem, Cherukapalli Mandal Andhra Pradesh Guntur – 522309 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afjpn4315H] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Malladi Muralidhar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

unexplained money and has also disallowed an amount of Rs.1,85,500/- being claim made by the assessee towards interest

THE MACHILIPATNAM POSTAL DEPTL & GDS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED NO H164,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.249/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Machilipatnam Postal Deptl & Gds V. Income Tax Officer – Ward -1 Co-Op Credit Society Limited No. H164 Aayakar Bhavan, Parasupeta Machilipatnam – 521001 Machilipatnam – 521001 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aafat5514L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added it to the total income of the assessee. 3. Further, Ld. AO also did not accept the explanation provided by the assessee with respect to deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 17,92,203/-. Ld. AO thus invoked the provisions of section

KUNADHARAJU NAGA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA RAJU,GANAPAVARAM MANDAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.442/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2018-19) Kanadharaju Naga Venkata Ramakrishnam Raju V. Income Tax Officer – Ward-1 D.No. 3-96, Jallikakinada Income Tax Office, Sajjapuram Ganapavaram Mandal Tanuku – 534211 Andhra Pradesh West Godavari District – 534186 Andhra Pradesh

unexplained money. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 6. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld.AR pleaded Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.442/VIZ/2024 Kanadharaju Naga Venkata Ramakrishnam

PURAMA RAMAKRISHNA RAO,SALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.221/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Purama Ramakrishna Rao, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Saluru, Vizianagaram Dist., Ward-2, Andhra Pradesh. Vizianagaram. Pan: Altpp40003E (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 : 10/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

disallowance of cash deposits only during the November & December 2016 of Rs.10,74,400/- and Rs. 14,14,600/- respectively. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee has filed his return of income after issuance of notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act. However, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 21,30,000/- as 6 unexplained

SRI VASAVI KALA MANDIR,BOBBILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.107/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Vasavi Kala Mandir, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 2/16, Main Road, Ward-1, Bobbili, Vizianagaram Dist, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh – 535558. Andhra Pradesh-535002. Pan: Aaifs2687P (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 : 30/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 27/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

money U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act…..”. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in 4 appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case

THE SOCIETY OF JESUS MARY JOSEPH SNEHALAYA,MANGALAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

money u/s 69A, addition of Rs. 2,48,818/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and addition of Rs. 30,470/- as income from other sources. Further, Assessing Officer levied a tax of Rs. 1,31,54,351/-. 4. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee even after

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI MUTCHUAKARLA APPA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.668/Viz/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Mutchuakarla Appa Rao, Ward-3(2), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Ahvpm 9813 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No.22/Viz/2021 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.668/Viz/2019) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Sri Mutchuakarla Appa Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), Pan: Ahvpm 9813 F Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasad Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 17/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

money from Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam. The Ld. AR further submitted that various judicial decisions have rendered and laid down the ratio that the statement recorded U/s. 131(1) of the Act is not binding on the assessee and hence the additions cannot be made based on the statement recorded from the assessee

MANUCHUKONDA SRI RAM,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Manchokonda Sri Ram Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.7-1-36, Ward-1 Manchukonda Vari Veedhi Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Acnpr3037M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sankar Pandi, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06 .01.2023

money u/s 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee and even during appellate 5 I.T.A. No.178/Viz/2022, A.Y.2017-18 Manchukonda Sri Ram, Vizianagaram proceedings, the assessee has not made any written submission, except submitting the statement of facts. Therefore, the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions which has not been

THE VIJAYAWADA ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 2(1) , 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.273/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Vijayawada Electricity Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Ward-2 (1) Office Of The Assistant Engineer Vijayawada Operation, Kg Market Section Beside Vmc Building Apcpdcl, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaeat3589Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

unexplained money of the society u/s 69A of the Act. Further, the assessee had filed return of income in response to notice u/s 142 (1) on 27.11.2019, declaring an income of Rs.35,60,020/- and claimed deduction u/s 80P for the entire amount. The AO disallowed

RANAR AGROCHEM LIMITED,PARAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, 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 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act: Rs. 3,47,97,000/-. 4 Ranar Agrochem Limited vs. DCIT 4. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Although, the CIT(A) directed the AO to consider the assessee’s claim that the unreconciled receipt of Rs. 1,35,680/- was accounted

KALAPALA VENKAT S/O. KVNS PRASAD,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

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. 187/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Kalapala Venkat, Vs. Income Tax Officer, S/O. Kvns Prasad, Ward-1, 5-107, Veeravalli, Gudiwada. Bapulapadu (M), Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521130. Pan: Cqhpk 7511 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 17/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

unexplained money and added the same to the total income of the assessee U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the Ld.AO determined the assessed income of the assessee at Rs. 25,74,000/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 18/03/2022. Aggrieved by the order

GOWRIPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GOWRIPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

unexplained money under section\n69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee and the\nsame was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).\n19. Before us, Ld.AR prayed that facts for the A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17\nremain the same and was allowed in the earlier assessment year. The Ld.AR\nfurther submitted that there

GOWRIPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GOWRIPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

unexplained money under section\n69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee and the\nsame was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).\n19.\nBefore us, Ld.AR prayed that facts for the A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17\nremain the same and was allowed in the earlier assessment year. The Ld.AR\nfurther submitted that there

GOWRIPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GOWRIPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

unexplained money under section\n69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee and the\nsame was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).\n19. Before us, Ld.AR prayed that facts for the A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17\nremain the same and was allowed in the earlier assessment year. The Ld.AR\nfurther submitted that there

PADMAVATHI GURUVU,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.227/Viz/2024 (धनिाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Padmavathi Guruvu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Srikakulam. Ward-2, Pan: Abopg1523D Srikakulam. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca प्रत्यार्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

unexplained money U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO also made an addition of Rs. 8,78,000/- U/s. 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee made detailed submissions

SRINIVASA RAO INUGANTI,MYLAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.28/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Srinivasa Rao Inuganti Vs. Income Tax Officer Sy.No.537/5, S.V.S.Nager Ward-3(1) Mylavaram Vijayawada Ntr District [Pan : Abdpi5709C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

disallowed 50% of the expenditure and added back to the income returned u/s 57 of the Act. Further, the AO observed that the assessee received Rs.25,00,000/- from Kotagiri Krishna Kanth during the F.Y.2016-17. The assessee was issued show cause notice dated 26.12.2019 to explain about the nature of transactions made with Kotagiri Krishna Kanth. But, since the assessee