SREE CONSTRUCTIONS,VIJAYAWADA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, RANGE-2, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.18/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) M/S. Sree Constructions, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of G-3, Anjali Apartments, Income Tax, Sitarama Nagar, Patamata Lanka, Range-2, Vijayawada-520010. Vijayawada. Pan: Abvfs 5848 N (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

U/s. 271E of the Act. Section 271E of the Act is pari materia to section 271D of the Act. We hereby reproduce the relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra) for immediate reference: “As pointed out above, insofar as, fresh assessment order is concerned, there

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. BHRATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PVT LTD, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 249/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bharathi Consumer Care Central Circle-1, Products Private Limited, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Sy. No. 280, 281, Peddaparimi Lakshmipuram Main Road, Village, Nidumukkala Post, Guntur-522007, Guntur – 522016, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadcb 9107 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 17/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 249/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) M/S. Bharathi Consumer Care Vs. Dcit, Products Private Limited, Central Circle-1, Sy. No. 280, 281, Peddaparimi 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Village, Nidumukkala Post, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur – 522016, Guntur-522007, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadcb 9107 B (Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

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.” 7. Further, this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Kanchumarthi Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao (supra) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.361/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Madhu Devi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex #27-23-66, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aelpj0707L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.362/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rakesh Kumar Jain V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 27-12-35, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Astps2713B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

u/s 271D of the IT Act is barred by limitation, as per the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the IT Act. Therefore, the impugned order lacks legal validity and should be quashed.” 8. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the penalty order under section 271D of the Act is barred by limitation

MADHU DEVI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

u/s 271D of the IT Act is barred\nby limitation, as per the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the IT Act.\nTherefore, the impugned order lacks legal validity and should be\nquashed.\"\n8.\nAt the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR"]\nsubmitted that the penalty order under section 271D of the Act is barred by\nlimitation

RAYALA RAJESWARA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.239/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Rayala Rajeswara Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Ancpr 0801 R Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

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.” 9. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra) we are of the considered view that

SAMRAJYAM KONDRU,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.183/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Samrajyam Kondru Vs. Jcit, Range-1 20-130 Tb Road Vijayawada Ramannapeta Bus Stop Nandigama Post & Mandal Krishna Dist [Pan : Bfmpk8467H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Prasad Talluri, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sankar Pandi, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in so far 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.” The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has relied on various other decisions. In this case also no satisfaction has been recorded by the AO for initiation