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.

penalty imposed by the A.O. under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that the quantum addition of Rs. 8,20,58,150/- (supra) made by the A.O. while framing the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B

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

Bench: us :

penalty imposed by the A.O. under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that the quantum addition of Rs. 8,20,58,150/- (supra) made by the A.O. while framing the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B

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

SIVADURGAVARA PRASAD CHENNUPATI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT CIT, CIRCLE 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.368/Viz/2025 (Assessment Year 2016-17) (Assessment Year 2016-17) Sivadurgavara Prasad Chennupati, H. No. 27-32-27, Raghu Paints, Mudda Subbaiah Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada ............... Appellant Pan: Aeepc5404L V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), ……………… Respondent C R Building, 1St Floor Annex, M.G. Road, Vijayawada Assessee By : Shri C.R. Hemanth Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

u/s 148, the entire proceedings under Sec. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B are bad in law.” 4. Since the issues raised by way of additional grounds are legal issues, which can be decided on the basis of material available on record, therefore, the same are admitted in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

SIVA DURGA VARA PRASAD CHENNUPATI,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Balakrishnan Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.368/Viz/2025 (Assessment Year 2016-17) (Assessment Year 2016-17) Sivadurgavara Prasad Chennupati, H. No. 27-32-27, Raghu Paints, Mudda Subbaiah Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada ............... Appellant Pan: Aeepc5404L V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), ……………… Respondent C R Building, 1St Floor Annex, M.G. Road, Vijayawada Assessee By : Shri C.R. Hemanth Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

u/s 148, the entire proceedings under Sec. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B are bad in law.” 4. Since the issues raised by way of additional grounds are legal issues, which can be decided on the basis of material available on record, therefore, the same are admitted in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 3. On appeal, since there was no response from the assessee with respect to the hearing notices issued and in the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee

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

GIRIJAN CO-OP MARKRTING 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

section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271

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

section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271

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

section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271

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

section 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022. Further, while passing the assessment order, learned AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271

SATYAVATHI GOLKONDA,MACHILIPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MACHILIPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 219/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Satyavathi Golkonda, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mig-102, Old Aphb Colony, Aayakar Bhavan, Paraspet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 521001. Andhra Pradesh-521001. Pan: Attpg1361J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 08/08/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

section 144(1)(b) of the Act and proceeded to complete the assessment as best judgment assessment. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO asked the assessee to produce the documentary evidence in respect of salary received during the year and also to furnish the details with respect to purchase of immovable property amounting

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

u/s. 148 and invalid order passed u/s.148A(d) as per provisions of section 149(1)(b), since, the reassessment notice is issued for less than Rs.50 lacks escaped income for the period beyond 3 years. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred both on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of deductions under Chapter VIA of Rs.3

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

u/s. 148 and invalid order passed u/s.148A(d) as per provisions of section 149(1)(b), since, the reassessment notice is issued for less than Rs.50 lacks escaped income for the period beyond 3 years. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred both on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of deductions under Chapter VIA of Rs.3

KUNAPAREDDY SUJATHA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2016-17 Kunapareddy Sujatha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan : Akfpk1757R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Ms. K. Sandhya Rani, Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

penalty proceedings were initiated, including under Sections 271(1)(c), 271B, 271F, and 271(1)(b), for alleged concealment of income, failure to comply with notices, delayed filing of returns, and failure to get accounts audited. Accordingly, Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining the total income at Rs. 67,05,330/- leading to a demand

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

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

section 69A of the Act and treated the said amount of Rs. 1,59,00,000/- as unexplained income of the Act and brought to tax the same U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. The Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income

3F INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.275/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2020-21) 3F Industries Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of P.B. No. 15, Tanuku Road, Income Tax, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Circle-1, District, Andhra Pradesh-534101. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aaacf2643K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of : 30/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the AY 2020-21. 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacture and trading of edible oils and its by-products, bakery shortenings and margarine, specialty fats by importing raw material from its Associated Enterprises, filed its original return

VASAMSETTY GANGADHARA RAO,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

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.325/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Vasamsetty Gangadhara Rao, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Rajahmundry. Ward-2(1), Pan: Aevpa2543M Rajahmundry. (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 : 23/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

section 147 of the Act and notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31/3/2021 after obtaining the necessary approval from the competent authority to furnish the return of income for the AY 2016-17. In response to the notice U/s. 148 dated 31/3/2021 the assessee vide his reply dated 27/04/2021 has stated that the return of income filed