POTLURI PHANENDRA BABU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.241 & 242/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2012-13) Potluri Phanendra Babu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), Pan: Agspp 7638 K Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 10/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that since the assessee could not explain the investment to the satisfaction of the Ld. CIT(A), it shall not be 5 a ground for levy of penalty. He therefore pleaded that the penalty levied shall be quashed. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee initially

MARTURI SRINIVASA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.124/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Marturi Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.1-75, 2Nd Line Ward-1(1) Rajeev Nagar Colony Guntur Atchampet Post, Guntur [Pan : Bvnpm4138E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

cash deposits as amount collected on behalf of the Telecom company from various customers and deposited in the bank account and commission on such deposits is given by the Telecom company. The reasons cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee prima facie found to be reasonable because the assessee was under bonafide belief that he was not liable

AJJU CHAKRADHAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the 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. 57/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ajju Chakradhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-5(4), Pan: Aglpc9710C Visakhapatnam. (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 : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 08/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

cash deposits and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 10,81,320/- and passed the 3 assessment order U/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 30/11/2011. Thus the Ld. AO raised a demand of Rs. 2,59,906/- and initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271

INCOMETAX OFFICER, TANUKU vs. VENKATA SURYA DURGA RAJU KOPPISETTI, THIMMARAJUPALEM

Bench: us :

cash deposits of Rs.820.58 Lakhs even after providing with sufficient opportunities before the Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the order by merely mentioning that the addition made by the AO in quantum proceedings has been deleted and failed in verifying the facts of the case during the penalty proceedings. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to notice

INCOMETAX OFFICER, TANUKU vs. VENKATA SURYA DURGA RAJU KOPPISETTI, THIMMARAJUPALEM

Bench: us : “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

cash deposits of Rs.820.58 Lakhs even after providing with sufficient opportunities before the Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the order by merely mentioning that the addition made by the AO in quantum proceedings has been deleted and failed in verifying the facts of the case during the penalty proceedings. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. BHRATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PVT LTD, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 249/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bharathi Consumer Care Central Circle-1, Products Private Limited, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Sy. No. 280, 281, Peddaparimi Lakshmipuram Main Road, Village, Nidumukkala Post, Guntur-522007, Guntur – 522016, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadcb 9107 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 17/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 249/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) M/S. Bharathi Consumer Care Vs. Dcit, Products Private Limited, Central Circle-1, Sy. No. 280, 281, Peddaparimi 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Village, Nidumukkala Post, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur – 522016, Guntur-522007, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadcb 9107 B (Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

cash loan from financiers who also do not have any sources. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that when the genuineness of the transaction, creditworthiness of the Director and company are not doubted and held to be genuine, no penal proceedings are attracted and hence penalty levied U/s. 271D is unreasonable and therefore the establishment

RAYALA RAJESWARA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.239/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Rayala Rajeswara Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Ancpr 0801 R Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

cash deposits made by the assessee amounting to Rs. 16,98,000/- and he convinced and accepted the explanation 8 given by the assessee. Further, it is pertinent to mention that the Ld.AO has not recorded the satisfaction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings while passing the assessment order U/s. 143(3) of the Act which is a prerequisite

SANKARAM SIRAM,PALAKOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALKOL

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.116/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sankaram Siram Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.2-69, Main Road Ward-1 Dagguluru Village Palakol Palakol Mandal West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Apdps3611R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

deposits of Rs.1,29,26,227/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and penalty proceedings u/s 271

KOSANAM RAMA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Us:

deposit or specified sum so taken or accepted. (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner.” 12. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e., as to whether or not the penalty imposed on the assessee by the Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC under Section 271D

AZIZULLA SHARIEF, L/R OF LATE ALIA BEGUM,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 306/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sri Azizulla Sharief Vs. The Income Tax Officer, L/R Of Late Smt.Alia Begum, Ward-1(2), D.No. 9-34-9/1, Opp. Visakhapatnam. Kalabharathi Pithapuram Colony, Visakhapatnam. [Pan : Apfpa7533J] (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 : 09/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 13/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 31/03/2016 and made an addition of Rs. 5 lakhs towards unexplained cash deposits in the absence of proper evidences and explanations from the assessee. Thereafter, on appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) granted part relief to the assessee. After giving effect to the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, the Ld. AO revised

SAMRAJYAM KONDRU,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.183/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Samrajyam Kondru Vs. Jcit, Range-1 20-130 Tb Road Vijayawada Ramannapeta Bus Stop Nandigama Post & Mandal Krishna Dist [Pan : Bfmpk8467H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Prasad Talluri, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sankar Pandi, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

deposit in cash. Further explanation to Section 269SS mention “specified sum” means any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in 3 I.T.A. No.183/Viz/2022, A.Y.2017-18 Samrajyam Kondru, Krishna Dist. relation to transfer of an immovable property, whether or not transfer takes place. In my case, I have not received any advance against the property. I have transferred

MAHANKALI JYOTHI,DUBLIN, USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

cash deposits from the following sources: (i) Own savings Rs. 18,75,000 (ii) Gift From Father in law Rs. 15,80,000 (iii) Gift from Mother Rs. 6,50,000 (iv) Gift from Brother Rs. 4,00,000 (v) Gift from Sister in law Rs. 1,60,000 (vi) Sale proceeds of plot

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.361/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Madhu Devi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex #27-23-66, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aelpj0707L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.362/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rakesh Kumar Jain V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 27-12-35, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Astps2713B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

u/s 271D of the IT Act is barred by limitation, as per the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the IT Act. Therefore, the impugned order lacks legal validity and should be quashed.” 8. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the penalty order under section 271D of the Act is barred by limitation

MADHU DEVI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

u/s 271D of the IT Act is barred\nby limitation, as per the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the IT Act.\nTherefore, the impugned order lacks legal validity and should be\nquashed.\"\n8.\nAt the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR"]\nsubmitted that the penalty order under section 271D of the Act is barred by\nlimitation

SIMHADRI NAIDU SAMANTHULA,PALAKONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

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.410/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Simhadri Naidu Samanthula, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakonda. Ward-1, Pan: Amsps2903C Srikakulam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 05/11/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

cash deposits. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 35,62,576/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 147 r.s. 144B of the Act, dated 31/10/2023. The Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271

BAPATLA MAHILA MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THRIFT SOCIET LIMITED,BAPATLA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WRD-1, BAPATLA

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’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 321/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bapatla Mahila Mutually Aided Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Op. Thrift Society Limited, Ward-1, Bapatla. Bapatla. Pan: Aaaab6442N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act 1961 for non 4 compliance of above mentioned statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued a final show-cause notice to the assessee on 18.02.2022 as to why the assessee’s case should not be decided on merit treating it as ex-parte

DEVARASETTY RAJA SEKHAR,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

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. 287/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Devarasetty Raja Sekhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Arlpd3944J Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. Arune, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 30/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

deposited in his account maintained with HDFC 3 Bank along with documentary evidence, the Ld. AO treated the amount of Rs. 66,47,900/- as unexplained cash U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and made the addition. Further, the Ld. AO also made addition of Rs. 6,84,841/- U/s. 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Act towards payment

STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING AP,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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. 147/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) State Board Of Technical Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Education & Training Ap, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Aawas9250P Vijayawada. (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 : 11/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

cash deposits. Therefore, the Ld. AO came to the conclusion that the said amount of Rs. 1,59,00,000/- belongs to the assessee and it was not recorded in the books of accounts. Further, the assessee has also not filed its return of income. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1,59,00,000/- remained unexplained. Accordingly

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

cash deposits made into the assessee’s bank account, the amount of Rs. 1,19,92,500/- is being added to the to the total income of the assessee as 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