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)

assessment in exercise of powers under s.263, where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act." 7. In view of the above, equally we are unable to subscribe to the view adopted by Allahabad High Court in Surendra Prasad Aggarwal

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

assessment in exercise of powers\nunder s.263, where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated\npenalty proceedings, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty\nproceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.\"\n7.\nIn view of the above, equally we are unable to subscribe to the view\nadopted by Allahabad High Court in Surendra Prasad Aggarwal

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

reopened U/s. 147 of the Act and the assessment order was passed on 31/3/2015 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 56,39,640/-. The Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271

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

reopened U/s. 147 of the Act and the assessment order was passed on 31/3/2015 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 56,39,640/-. The Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271

GINJALA ATCHIRAJU, L/R. OF GINJALA SIMHADRI RAJU, ,KAKINADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

penalty order U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28/06/2019. 2. The facts of the case are that a survey operation U/s. 133A of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee on 20/07/2017. During the course of the survey operations, it was noticed that Sri Ginjala Simhadri Raju along with his daughter sold

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)

reopened based on the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, assessee filed his return of income on 26.11.2021 admitting total income at Rs.3,98,650/-. Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] considering the submissions of the assessee, assessed the total income as per the return

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

Bench: us :

reopened his case, therefore, the consequential assessment so framed by him could not be sustained and was liable to be vacated. 11 ITA Nos.329 and 330/Viz/2025 & C.O.36 and 37/Viz/2025 Venkata Surya Durga Raju Koppisetti 11. We find that the CIT(A), after deliberating upon the written submissions filed by the assessee and the remand report/ rejoinder of the assessee, vacated

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.

reopened his case, therefore, the consequential assessment so framed by him could not be sustained and was liable to be vacated. 11 ITA Nos.329 and 330/Viz/2025 & C.O.36 and 37/Viz/2025 Venkata Surya Durga Raju Koppisetti 11. We find that the CIT(A), after deliberating upon the written submissions filed by the assessee and the remand report/ rejoinder of the assessee, vacated

DUBASI BABAJI RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.94/Viz/2023 & 95/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17) Dubasi Babaji Rao Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of A1/413, Vaisakhi Skyline Income Tax Geetam College Road Circle-1(1) Yendada Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acfpd9977J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

reopened by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 12.02.2020 as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act on the basis of information available with the Assessing Officer (AO). Further notices u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 03.02.2021, 15.02.2021, 02.03.2021, 15.07.2021 were issued, but the assessee could not comply with the notices. Final show cause notice along with

DUBASI BABAJI RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.94/Viz/2023 & 95/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17) Dubasi Babaji Rao Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of A1/413, Vaisakhi Skyline Income Tax Geetam College Road Circle-1(1) Yendada Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acfpd9977J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

reopened by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 12.02.2020 as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act on the basis of information available with the Assessing Officer (AO). Further notices u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 03.02.2021, 15.02.2021, 02.03.2021, 15.07.2021 were issued, but the assessee could not comply with the notices. Final show cause notice along with

PARASURAM KESARI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

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

Reopening of assessment on the basis of change of opinion is bad in law. 5. Levy of interest U/s. 234B is not warranted. 5 6. Addition being technical in nature, levy of penalty U/s. 271

SARADAMBIKA POWER PLANT (P) LTD, SRIKAKULAM,SRIKAKULAM vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsaradambika Power Plant (P) Ltd., Plot No.15, Konna Street, Radha Krishna Nagar Colony, Srikakulam. Andhra Pradesh - 532001 ............... Appellant Pan: Aajcs5970R V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), ……………… Respondent Visakhapatnam

penalty of Rs.90,60,642 levied by the assessing officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition of Rs.2,61,53,037 made towards disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 43B of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that for the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income admitting

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Itat, Stating That The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Was Based Merely On System Generated Information, Which Is Invalid & Without Any Tangible Material. In The Grounds Of Appeal, It Was Mentioned That The Assessment U/S 147 Is Beyond Time Limit Prescribed & Hence, The Proceedings Are Void-Ab-Initio.

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), dated 22.03.2024 and 20.09.2024 respectively, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The appellant filed an appeal before ITAT, stating that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was based merely on system generated information, which is invalid and without any tangible material. In the grounds

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

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), dated\n22.03.2024 and 20.09.2024 respectively, pertaining to the assessment\nyear 2016-17.\n2.\nThe appellant filed an appeal before ITAT, stating that the\nreopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was based merely on\nsystem generated information, which is invalid and without any\ntangible material. In the grounds

GIRJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

reopened the assessee’s case U/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). 5. Accordingly, notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued but the assessee did not respond to the notice nor filed the return of income. Further, notices U/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee on various dates and requested to furnish

GIRJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

reopened the assessee’s case U/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). 5. Accordingly, notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued but the assessee did not respond to the notice nor filed the return of income. Further, notices U/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee on various dates and requested to furnish

GIRIJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

reopened the assessee’s case U/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). 5. Accordingly, notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued but the assessee did not respond to the notice nor filed the return of income. Further, notices U/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee on various dates and requested to furnish