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

271(1)(c) to initiate penalty and consequently the CIT is empowered to get it done through the AO by virtue of powers vested in section 263 of Income tax Act. Accordingly, the CIT has directed the A.O to initiate the penalty proceedings U/s

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

271(1)(c) to initiate penalty and consequently the CIT is empowered to get it done through the AO by virtue of powers vested in section 263 of Income tax Act. Accordingly, the CIT has directed the A.O to initiate the penalty proceedings U/s

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 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 prescribes two faults or omissions which exposes the assessee to concealment penalty. These are concealment of particulars of income and / or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. The assessee submitted that penalty cannot be levied u/s

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]

section 271(1)(c) of the Act under which the penalty Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.352/VIZ/2025 Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty was proposed. However, the Ld. AO found the objections as not tenable and levied penalty of Rs.80,34,539/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. On being aggrieved by the penalty levied

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

u/s 158BFA held the penalty is not mandatory but discretionary. Hence, argued that the penalty under section 271AAB of the Act penalty is also not automatic and it is on the basis of merits of the case. For ready reference, we extract hereunder section 158BFA (2) of the Act and section 271AAB of the Act which reads as under; 271AAB

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

u/s 158BFA held the penalty is not mandatory but discretionary. Hence, argued that the penalty under section 271AAB of the Act penalty is also not automatic and it is on the basis of merits of the case. For ready reference, we extract hereunder section 158BFA (2) of the Act and section 271AAB of the Act which reads as under; 271AAB

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 274 rws 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

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

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)

u/s 271 was initiated. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of cited (supra) wherein the Hon’ble high court held as under: “On principle, when penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the revenue under Section

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)

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 however, the Ld. AO did not consider the assessee’s reply and observed that by virtue of part (B) of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty

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

u/s 271 was initiated. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of cited (supra) wherein the Hon’ble high court held as under: “On principle, when penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the revenue under Section

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

U/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

SRI SURYA ANJANEYA INDUSTRIES,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. Sri Surya Anjaneya Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Industries, D.No. 108/12, Vizianagaram. Opp.Fire Station, K.L.Puram, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram. Pan No. Abgfs 0809 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271 was initiated. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court of cited (supra) wherein the Hon‟ble high court held as under: “On principle, when penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the revenue under Section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HARI PRASAD BHARARIA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as C

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Visakhapatnam. B-101, Vuda Apartments, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.43/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 532/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2009-10) Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, B-101, Vuda Apartments, Visakhapatnam. Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Ablpb 6853 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. “ 10. We find that the ld. CIT(A) by following the decision in the light of Konchada Sreeram (supra) and also the decision in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) has held that the penalty (Sri Hari Prasad Bhararia) order dated 31/03/2017 passed under section

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)

penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) and issued a notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act. 3. On appeal

MATHALA VENKATA SURYA SIVA PRASAD, ,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, RAJAHMUNDRY

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.113/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Mathala Venkata Surya Vs. Income Tax Officer Siva Prasad Ward-4 D.No.29-1-23C Rajahmundry Devichowk, Rajahmundry [Pan :Adcpm6281E] (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

u/s 271 was initiated. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of cited (supra) wherein the Hon’ble high court held as under: “On principle, when penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the revenue under Section

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SIRIPURAPU CHINATALLI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly deleted the impugned penalty levied upon the assessee. [Para 12]” The expression concealment of income implies that the income is being camouflaged or covered up so as it cannot be seen, found, observed or discovered. The expression furnishing of particulars of income implies furnishing of details or information about

ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI K V V PRASAD,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement

section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly deleted the impugned penalty levied upon the assessee. [Para 12]” The expression concealment of income implies that the income is being camouflaged or covered up so as it cannot be seen, found, observed or discovered. The expression furnishing of particulars of income implies furnishing of details or information about