THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISKAHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year. From the plain reading of the same, any return filed u/s 153A shall be deemed to have been filed as u/s 139 of the Act. Various judicial pronouncements have held that penalty

SATYA VENKATA KRISHNA RAVI PRASAD KODURI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

reassessed or recomputed in a\npreceding order”\n10. She also reiterated in her written submissions the various scenario under\nwhich the penalty under section 270A leviable, which is reproduced below: -\nScenarios\na.\nApplicability for assessee's case\nNot Applicable since there is no\ndifference between assessed income and\nreturned income\nwhen the assessed income is\ngreater than the returned income

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHAN RAO KODURI,EAST GODHAVARI vs. ACIT, CIRLCE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order” 10. She also reiterated in her written submissions the various scenario under which the penalty under section 270A leviable, which is reproduced below: - Scenarios Applicability for assessee’s case a. when the assessed income is Not Applicable since there is no greater than the returned income; difference between assessed income and (refer 270A

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHANA RAO KODURI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order” 10. She also reiterated in her written submissions the various scenario under which the penalty under section 270A leviable, which is reproduced below: - Scenarios Applicability for assessee’s case a. when the assessed income is Not Applicable since there is no greater than the returned income; difference between assessed income and (refer 270A

SATYA VENKATA KRISHNA RAVI PRASAD KODURI,EAST GODHAVARI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

reassessed or recomputed in a\npreceding order”\n10.\nShe also reiterated in her written submissions the various scenario under\nwhich the penalty under section 270A leviable, which is reproduced below: -\na.\nScenarios\nwhen the assessed income is\ngreater than the returned income;\n(refer 270A(2))\nb.\nwhere return was filed and\nassessed income is more than\nincome

KOTI NARASIMHA REDDY GUTTIKONDA,GUNTUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VIJAYAWADA

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.332/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda Vs. Pr. Cit 1-99, Rudravaram – 522410 Siddhardha Public School Road Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh Mogalrajapurm Vijayawada – 520010 [Pan: Amcpg7882N] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

reassessment couldn't have been initiated as per Sec.149, but still the assessee paid taxes. 5. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any Ground of Appeal.” 5. Assessee has challenged the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and has claimed immunity as per Explanation 4C to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld.AR submitted that

SESHA SAI TOWNSHIP PVT.LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.301 & 302/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2007-2008 & 2008-09) Sri Sesha Sai Township P. Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.40-7-9/1, 1St Floor Income Tax Moghalrajpuram Road Central Circle Labbipet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aakcs2094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.Chandramouleswara Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and held that such order has no sanctity, hence, it is invalid. The issue of unsigned draft order u/s 144B was considered by the ITAT, Jaipur in 40 Taxmann 200 in ITO Vs. Super Tools India Ltd and held that the proposed order was not an order at all especially when it was not signed

SESHA SAI TOWNSHIP PVT.LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. THE ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.301 & 302/Viz/2015 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2007-2008 & 2008-09) Sri Sesha Sai Township P. Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.40-7-9/1, 1St Floor Income Tax Moghalrajpuram Road Central Circle Labbipet Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Aakcs2094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.Chandramouleswara Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and held that such order has no sanctity, hence, it is invalid. The issue of unsigned draft order u/s 144B was considered by the ITAT, Jaipur in 40 Taxmann 200 in ITO Vs. Super Tools India Ltd and held that the proposed order was not an order at all especially when it was not signed

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

reassessment". When a return is filed and when neither an acknowledgement or intimation u/s.143(1)of the Act is issued nor a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is issued within the time limit laid down in the proviso to Secc.143(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated by filing the return are closed. In the present case, the period

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

reassessment". When a return is filed and when neither an acknowledgement or intimation u/s.143(1)of the Act is issued nor a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is issued within the time limit laid down in the proviso to Secc.143(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated by filing the return are closed. In the present case, the period

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

reassessment". When a return is filed and when neither an acknowledgement or intimation u/s.143(1)of the Act is issued nor a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is issued within the time limit laid down in the proviso to Secc.143(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated by filing the return are closed. In the present case, the period

MYNENI VENKATA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

reassessment". When a return is filed and when neither an acknowledgement or intimation u/s.143(1)of the Act is issued nor a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is issued within the time limit laid down in the proviso to Secc.143(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated by filing the return are closed. In the present case, the period

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

reassessment". When a return is filed and when neither an acknowledgement or intimation u/s.143(1)of the Act is issued nor a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is issued within the time limit laid down in the proviso to Secc.143(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated by filing the return are closed. In the present case, the period

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

reassessment". When a return is filed and when neither an acknowledgement or intimation u/s.143(1)of the Act is issued nor a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is issued within the time limit laid down in the proviso to Secc.143(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated by filing the return are closed. In the present case, the period

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

reassessment". When a return is filed and when neither an acknowledgement or intimation u/s.143(1)of the Act is issued nor a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is issued within the time limit laid down in the proviso to Secc.143(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated by filing the return are closed. In the present case, the period

ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL,PROP: BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1ST LANE,,GUNTUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

reassessment". When a return is filed and when neither an acknowledgement or intimation u/s.143(1)of the Act is issued nor a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is issued within the time limit laid down in the proviso to Secc.143(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated by filing the return are closed. In the present case, the period

ANDHRA PRADESH CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleandhra Pradesh Capital Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Region Development Authority Vijayawada. (Formerly Vgtm Urban Development Authority), Uda Complex, Lenin Centre, Governorpet, Vijayawada. Pan No. Aaalv 0067 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess the escapement of income after four years, the Assessing Officer has to establish that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary to complete the assessment. In this case, the Assessing Officer has raised an objection in respect of sinking (A.P. Capital Region Development Authority) funds

KAKRLA SURYA GANGADHAR TILAK,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

271(1)(c) dated 25.03.2015 was issued along with order u/s 144 of the Act. All these details are reported from the penalty proceedings dated 29.09.2015. However, the assessee never received any notice / order from the income tax authorities. Letter F.No.ITO/W- 1(2)/vsp/Penalty/2015-16 dated 11.09.2015 was served on the assessee on 16.09.2015. In response to the same

KAKARLA GUNA VIDYA SARASWATHI,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.177/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Smt.Kakarla Guna Vidya Saraswathi Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Kakrla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Ward-3(3) A-1, Janani Apartments Visakhapatnam Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Apjpk5999N] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Kakarla Surya Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Income Tax Officer A-1, Janani Apartments Ward-1(2) Pandurangaswamy Temple Backside Visakhapatnam Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahbpk5319G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I.Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-1 Visakhapatnam

271(1)(c) dated 25.03.2015 was issued along with order u/s 144 of the Act. All these details are reported from the penalty proceedings dated 29.09.2015. However, the assessee never received any notice / order from the income tax authorities. Letter F.No.ITO/W- 1(2)/vsp/Penalty/2015-16 dated 11.09.2015 was served on the assessee on 16.09.2015. In response to the same