DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO KANCHUMARTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

u/s 148 shows that the assessee's intention is to escape tax? 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT(Appeals) is justified in ignoring the fact that mens rea or intention of assessee has no relevance in civil penalties as laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dharmendra Textile

VISAKHAPATNAM INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 657/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Cit – Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Visakhapatnam Gvmc Room No.204 Tenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam – 530002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated against the appellant for furnishing inaccurate particulars and for the concealment of particulars of income. Merely by not specifying the limbs under which section 271(1)(c) has been invoked by striking out any one of the phrase cannot be considered as the notice to be invalid. From the Assessment order

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:

10 Kosanam Rama Rao, Guntur. on the touchstone of the fact that the original assessment order, wherein satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act was recorded, having been set-aside, thus, did no more survive, the Tribunal and the High Court concluded that the penalty imposed under Section 271D of the Act could not be sustained

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI SAI ENGINEERING AND DRILLING, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Income Tax, D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Circle-2(1), Second Lane, Lic Colony, Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) C.O. No. 06/Viz/2025 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.63/Viz/2025) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Sai Engineering & Drilling, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of D. No. 54-18-26, B-3, Second Income Tax, Lane, Lic Colony, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan:Abafs0788A (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the specific ground which forms the foundation therefore has to be spelt out in clear terms Otherwise, on assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defense. When the proceedings are penal in nature resulting in imposition of penalty ranging from 100% to 300% of the tax liability

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

u/s 153C\nd.\nwhere return was filed for the\nfirst time in response to notice\nus. 148 of the IT Act. (refer\n270A (3)(b))\nNot Applicable since assessee's case is\nnot a case of notice issued u/s148\n11. She argued that assessee case does not fall in any of the above categories\nand hence even on merits penalty

RAGHURAM HUME PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.233/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Raghuram Hume Pipes Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Guntur-522002. Income Tax, Pan: Aaccr6125N Circle-2(1), Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty has been initiated and on this issue, the Ld. AR relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. SSA’S Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) (ii) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Blackroak Securities (P.) Ltd (2023) 157 taxmann.com 564 (Delhi) (iii) Malla Appalaraju

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)

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(2)) returned income b. where return

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)

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(2)) returned income b. where return

N R CONSTRUCTIONS,KAKINADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 18/Viz/2024 (धििाधरणिरध/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) N R Constructions V. Acit – Circle – 1 Kakinada 2-59-7, Shanthi Nagar Kakinada – 533003 Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Aabfn7969A] (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) यरद्त्य्पयतय्यिध/ Assessee Represented By : Ms. Keerthana, Ar र्जसय्पयतय्यिध/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar सु्व्ईसम्पहो्ेय्यतयि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 घोषण्य्त्र्ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

10. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 271(I)(c) of the Act as penalty cannot be levied merely because the assessee has accepted the disallowance made on estimation basis as there is no deliberate attempt to conceal income or to furnish inaccurate particulars of income. 11. The assessee may add, alter, or modify or substitute

ARAVINDA BHUPATHIRAJU REP BY GPA HOLDER SRI KAR BAHADUR SRI RAJA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (INTERNAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. (It). No.262/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Aravinda Bhupathiraju Vs. Asst. Cit (International Taxation) Rep. By. Gpa Holder Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers, K.A.R. Bahadur Sri Raja Sankaramatam Road Falt No. 502, Sky Aditya Apartment Visakhapatnam- 530016 Gitams Road, Yendada Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530045 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Bjopb0898P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 5. The sole issue contested by the assessee is with respect to levy of penalty of Rs.17,66,614/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the quantum appeal filed

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

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 a loss of Rs. 1,44,30,427/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and vide order dated 31.01.2013 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

U/s. 200A/234E wherein penalty / late filing fees was levied, whereas appeal has been filed against letter dated 10/05/2019. In view of the above facts, grounds of appeal cannot be decided on merits and are being dismissed in limine.” 10. In this situation, we find it relevant to extract the provisions of section 246A of the Act which reads as under

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

U/s. 200A/234E wherein penalty / late filing fees was levied, whereas appeal has been filed against letter dated 10/05/2019. In view of the above facts, grounds of appeal cannot be decided on merits and are being dismissed in limine.” 10. In this situation, we find it relevant to extract the provisions of section 246A of the Act which reads as under

BALAJEE CONSTRUCTIONS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

U/s. 200A/234E wherein penalty / late filing fees was levied, whereas appeal has been filed against letter dated 10/05/2019. In view of the above facts, grounds of appeal cannot be decided on merits and are being dismissed in limine.” 10. In this situation, we find it relevant to extract the provisions of section 246A of the Act which reads as under

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) be deleted as there is no concealment, but it is only due to voluntary disclosure by the assessee. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record including the written submissions filed by the Ld.AR and 10 I.T.A. No.237 & 239/Viz/2020 & CO No.20&21/Viz/2023

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)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We therefore set-aside the order of the Ld. Pr.CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed. Page. No 7 I.T.A.No.332/VIZ/2025 Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda 9. Further, the legal grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO to issue notice under

GOVERNAMENT POLYTECHNIC,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.149/Viz/2023 & 150/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Government Polytechnic Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Government Polytechnic College Ward-1 Kancharapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaagg1122Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

u/s. 154. However, the Ld. ITO (TDS), Ward-1, Visakhapatnam responded to the assessee’s letter stating that the waive-off of the late filing fee is out of his scope. In my view the 6 I.T.A. No.149/Viz/2023 & 150/Viz/2023, A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 Government Polytechnic, Visakhapatnam assessee ought to have filed a petition seeking rectification of the order passed

GOVERNAMENT POLYTECHNIC,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.149/Viz/2023 & 150/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Government Polytechnic Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Government Polytechnic College Ward-1 Kancharapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaagg1122Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

u/s. 154. However, the Ld. ITO (TDS), Ward-1, Visakhapatnam responded to the assessee’s letter stating that the waive-off of the late filing fee is out of his scope. In my view the 6 I.T.A. No.149/Viz/2023 & 150/Viz/2023, A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 Government Polytechnic, Visakhapatnam assessee ought to have filed a petition seeking rectification of the order passed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this connection, the Ld. AR submitted a computation of penalty in respect of concealment of income and computed it at Rs. 23,85,025/-. Therefore the levy of proportionate penalty for Rs. 23,85,025/- with respect to the concealed income is hereby confirmed U/s. 271