OMCON REIGN FOREST PROJECTS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.80-82 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 Respectively) M/S Omcon Reign Forest Projects Vs. Principal Commissioner Of S.No.180, Opp.Toyoto Income Tax-1 Show Room Visakhapatnam Paradesi Palem Village Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aacfo5604J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

10,14,700 2.2. Subsequently, the Pr.CIT has taken up the case for revision u/s 263 and observed that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) but the return was filed subsequent to the date of issue of letter and the notice u/s 148. The Ld.Pr.CIT further observed that though the assessee had taxable income, it did not file

OMCON REIGN FOREST PROJECTS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.80-82 /Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 Respectively) M/S Omcon Reign Forest Projects Vs. Principal Commissioner Of S.No.180, Opp.Toyoto Income Tax-1 Show Room Visakhapatnam Paradesi Palem Village Madhurawada Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aacfo5604J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr

10,14,700 2.2. Subsequently, the Pr.CIT has taken up the case for revision u/s 263 and observed that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) but the return was filed subsequent to the date of issue of letter and the notice u/s 148. The Ld.Pr.CIT further observed that though the assessee had taxable income, it did not file

VENKATA RAMA SATYANARAYANA VARMA VEGESNA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), 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.165/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vs. National E-Assesment Centre, Vegesna Delhi 10-50-2, Lazarus Bangalow (Dcit/Acit Waltair Main Road Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam) [Pan : Aagts9608E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrin C.M.Ravi Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2023 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043814974(1) Dated 12.07.2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 14.02.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 10 I.T.A. No.165/Viz/2022, A.Y.2011-12 Venkata Rama Satyanarayana Varma Vegesna, Visakhapatnam Order pronounced in the open court on 14th July 2023. (एस बालाकृष्णन) (दुव्वूरु आर.एल

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI M. SOMABRAHMAM,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

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

3 with an intention to consider the imposition of penalty judicially. Section 274 deals with the procedure for reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from combined reading of section 271AAB and section 274 of the Act, it is established that the penalty cannot be imposed unless the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity and assessee is being heard. Once

MOTHUKURI SOMABRAHMAM,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

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

3 with an intention to consider the imposition of penalty judicially. Section 274 deals with the procedure for reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from combined reading of section 271AAB and section 274 of the Act, it is established that the penalty cannot be imposed unless the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity and assessee is being heard. Once

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

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

SRI SAI DURGA HOUSING ESTATES,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

271(1 )(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of sec 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty u section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

SRI SAI DURGA HOUSING ESTATES,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

271(1 )(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of sec 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty u section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section (3

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, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR vs. SILEMANKHAN & MAHABOOBKHAN, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.571/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Silemankhan & Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.149/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.571/Viz/2019) (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) M/S Silemankhan & Vs. Deputy.Commissioner Of Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,-- (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

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

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

SRI VENKATESWARAVADDERA COOLIE SANGAM,,ELURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.255/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shri Venkateswara Vaddera Vs. Income Tax Officer Coolie Sangam Ward-1 D.No.6A-13-6, Ponangi Road Eluru Southern Street Eluru [Pan :Aacts4370F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19 .07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. There is no dispute that the notice issued by the AO is defective in 5 I.T.A. No.255/Viz/2019, A.Y.2012-13 Sri Venkateswara Vaddera Coolie Sangam, Eluru as much as non striking of irrelevant column is concerned. i.e. for which act of the assessee AO sought explanation whether

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. CHILUKURI HOUSING PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Chilukuri Housing Projects Visakhapatnam. Pvt. Ltd., 9-21-17/2, Ground Floor, Street No. 21, Cbm Compound, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aadcc 1027 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) by determining total income of Rs. 3.28 crores. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and called the assessee why penalty should not be levied. The assessee has submitted a detailed explanation before the Assessing Officer, however, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 271

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)

3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have cancelled the penalty of Rs. 72,31,470/- levied by the AO U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as the respondent did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Any other grounds of Cross Objection that may be raised at the time of hearing.” 6. Firstly, we shall adjudicate Ground

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have acknowledged that the assessee company had offered additional income in the return of income filed in response to notice U/s. 148 of the Act and this return of income was duly accepted by the AO. Therefore, the levy of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) is unwarranted and uncalled for. 4. The levy

D. PADMANABHAIAH,SECUNDERABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bled. Padmanabhaiah, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Flat No. 201, Manjeera Homes, Vijayawada. Phase-Ii, Near More Super Market, East Anandbagh, Malkajigiri, Secunderabad. Pan No. Afvpd 7527 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

3. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has raised the following additional ground before this Tribunal. “The penalty notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act does not contain the ground on which the penalty would be imposed, therefore, such notice has no legal sanctity, therefore