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:

273B of the Act, the violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act will be attracted. Accordingly, the Ld. JCIT levied a penalty of Rs. 82,62,000/- U/s. 271D of the Act and passed the order U/s. 271D of the Act on 12/02/2022. Aggrieved by the penalty order of the Ld. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income

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

DUBASI BABAJI RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.94/Viz/2023 & 95/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17) Dubasi Babaji Rao Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of A1/413, Vaisakhi Skyline Income Tax Geetam College Road Circle-1(1) Yendada Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acfpd9977J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 271 r.w.s. 274 r.w.s. 273B due to continuance of Covid 19 in the country in particular apart from all other causes. The Ld.AR filed the relevant CBDT Circulars and prayed to consider his submissions and give relief to the assessee on the merits of the case. 6. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT

DUBASI BABAJI RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.94/Viz/2023 & 95/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17) Dubasi Babaji Rao Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of A1/413, Vaisakhi Skyline Income Tax Geetam College Road Circle-1(1) Yendada Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acfpd9977J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 271 r.w.s. 274 r.w.s. 273B due to continuance of Covid 19 in the country in particular apart from all other causes. The Ld.AR filed the relevant CBDT Circulars and prayed to consider his submissions and give relief to the assessee on the merits of the case. 6. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT

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

273B of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 6. Further, the assessee vide his letter dated 1/3/2023 raised the following Additional Grounds of Appeal: “1. The penalty levied U/s. 271D of the Act vide order dated 16/03/2022 is barred by limitation. 2. The penalty levied U/s. 271D of the Act is void