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:

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

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)

27,54,387 – Rs. 2,14,79,100]. Accordingly, the Ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings and issued a show cause notice dated 21/02/2022 wherein the assessee was asked to show cause as to why penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In response, the assessee furnished its reply

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

27 Taxman\n447 (Rajasthan)]. She also placed reliance on the following cases:\ni.\nACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)\nii.\nCIT V. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. reported in [2018]\n92taxmann.com 329 (Madras)\niii.\nMumbai ITAT in the case of GM Builders in\nITANo.2192/MUM/2024\niv.\nRaipur ITAT in the case of Savitri Verma V. PCIT

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)

27 Taxman 447 (Rajasthan)]. She also placed reliance on the following cases: i. ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi) ii. CIT V. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. reported in [2018] 92taxmann.com 329 (Madras) iii. Mumbai ITAT in the case of G M Builders in ITANo.2192/MUM/2024 iv. Raipur ITAT in the case of Savitri Verma

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)

27 Taxman 447 (Rajasthan)]. She also placed reliance on the following cases: i. ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi) ii. CIT V. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. reported in [2018] 92taxmann.com 329 (Madras) iii. Mumbai ITAT in the case of G M Builders in ITANo.2192/MUM/2024 iv. Raipur ITAT in the case of Savitri Verma

PUSARLA SUBHASH,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blepusarla Subhash, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 15-13-6, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. Krishna Nagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aigpp 2446 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

27,880. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment is completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). During the (Pusarla Subhash) course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed to have received agricultural income of Rs. 25,36,596/- on cultivation of palm fruit plantation and requested

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)

27,00,000/- u/s 271AAB of the Act. 3. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the order stating that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not leviable, where search was not conducted and submitted that in the instant case no search was conducted and the assessment order was passed u/s

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

27 Taxman\n447 (Rajasthan)]. She also placed reliance on the following cases:\ni.\nACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)\nii.\nCIT V. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. reported in [2018]\n92taxmann.com 329 (Madras)\niii.\nMumbai ITAT in the case of G M Builders in\nITANo.2192/MUM/2024\niv.\nRaipur ITAT in the case of Savitri Verma

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURYA MANGAPATHI RAJU PENMETSA,, 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’Blejcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Surya Mangapathi Raju Visakhapatnam. Penmetsa, D.No. 11-9-6/2, Flat No. 90, Dasapalla Hills, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ahapp 1548 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for an amount of C.O.No. 51/VIZ/2018 (P. Surya Mangapathi Raju) Rs.25,27,350/- by observing that “the undersigned is specified that the assessee has a taxable income of Rs. 1,15,43,620/- during the financial year relevant to Assessment Year 2013-14 and hence, is liable to pay penalty which shall

GOLLA NARAYANARAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. AD CIT, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

27. With regard to the second proposition of financial exigency the assessee submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that there was reasonable cause for non-compliance of provisions u/s 269SS of the Act, since, the assessee had accepted the loan due to financial exigencies. The assessee argued before the Ld.CTI(A) that the factors like genuineness of loan transaction, 28 I.T.A

DY CIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. GOLLA NARAYANA RAO,, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

27. With regard to the second proposition of financial exigency the assessee submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that there was reasonable cause for non-compliance of provisions u/s 269SS of the Act, since, the assessee had accepted the loan due to financial exigencies. The assessee argued before the Ld.CTI(A) that the factors like genuineness of loan transaction, 28 I.T.A

DY CIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. GOLLA NARAYANA RAO,, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

27. With regard to the second proposition of financial exigency the assessee submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that there was reasonable cause for non-compliance of provisions u/s 269SS of the Act, since, the assessee had accepted the loan due to financial exigencies. The assessee argued before the Ld.CTI(A) that the factors like genuineness of loan transaction, 28 I.T.A

DY CIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. GOLLA NARAYANA RAO,, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

27. With regard to the second proposition of financial exigency the assessee submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that there was reasonable cause for non-compliance of provisions u/s 269SS of the Act, since, the assessee had accepted the loan due to financial exigencies. The assessee argued before the Ld.CTI(A) that the factors like genuineness of loan transaction, 28 I.T.A

GOLLA NARAYANA RAO,,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1),, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

27. With regard to the second proposition of financial exigency the assessee submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that there was reasonable cause for non-compliance of provisions u/s 269SS of the Act, since, the assessee had accepted the loan due to financial exigencies. The assessee argued before the Ld.CTI(A) that the factors like genuineness of loan transaction, 28 I.T.A

GOLLA NARAYANARAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

27. With regard to the second proposition of financial exigency the assessee submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that there was reasonable cause for non-compliance of provisions u/s 269SS of the Act, since, the assessee had accepted the loan due to financial exigencies. The assessee argued before the Ld.CTI(A) that the factors like genuineness of loan transaction, 28 I.T.A

DY CIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA. vs. GOLLA NARAYANA RAO,, VIJAYAWADA.

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

27. With regard to the second proposition of financial exigency the assessee submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that there was reasonable cause for non-compliance of provisions u/s 269SS of the Act, since, the assessee had accepted the loan due to financial exigencies. The assessee argued before the Ld.CTI(A) that the factors like genuineness of loan transaction, 28 I.T.A

DCIT, CIRCLE2(1),, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI GOLLA NARAYANA RAO,, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

27. With regard to the second proposition of financial exigency the assessee submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that there was reasonable cause for non-compliance of provisions u/s 269SS of the Act, since, the assessee had accepted the loan due to financial exigencies. The assessee argued before the Ld.CTI(A) that the factors like genuineness of loan transaction, 28 I.T.A

GOLLA NARAYANA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

27. With regard to the second proposition of financial exigency the assessee submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that there was reasonable cause for non-compliance of provisions u/s 269SS of the Act, since, the assessee had accepted the loan due to financial exigencies. The assessee argued before the Ld.CTI(A) that the factors like genuineness of loan transaction, 28 I.T.A