GOWRIPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GOWRIPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

cash deposits. However, on the issue of deduction claimed under\nsection 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, Ld. AO observing that the return was filed in\nresponse to notice under section 148 of the Act and not within the due date\nunder section 139(1) of the Act denied the deduction claimed by the assessee.\nFurther, Ld. AO also

GOWRIPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GOWRIPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

cash deposits. However, on the issue of deduction claimed under\nsection 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, Ld. AO observing that the return was filed in\nresponse to notice under section 148 of the Act and not within the due date\nPage. No 3\nI.T.A.Nos.432, 433 & 434/VIZ/2025\nGowripatnam Primary Agricultural Cooperative\nCredit Society Limited --\nunder section

GOWRIPATNAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GOWRIPATNAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

cash deposits. However, on the issue of deduction claimed under\nsection 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, Ld. AO observing that the return was filed in\nresponse to notice under section 148 of the Act and not within the due date\nunder section 139(1) of the Act denied the deduction claimed by the assessee.\nFurther, Ld. AO also

NANNEBOYINA KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (WARD IT), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.104/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nanneboyina Kalyan Chakravarthy V. Income Tax Officer C/O. C.R. Hemanthkumar Ward International Taxation Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex. H.No 9-14-4/7, Flat No. 7 M.G. Road, Vijayawada Sowbhagyaapartments Andhra Pradesh – 520002 Cbm Compound, Vip Road Andhra Pradesh - 530003 [Pan: Cuepk3530P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

deposits jn the bank are below Rs.50 lacs, i.e. Rs.26,72,500/- and therefore, the reassessment proceedings are legally untenable and deserve to be quashed. 3. The Ld.DRP failed to appreciate the fact that the initiation of proceedings u/s 148, based on incorrect figures that cash

VULLI RADHAKRISHNA,TUNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.359/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vulli Radhakrishna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Aegpv1751H Tuni. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short “A.O.”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 26/03/2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2 Vulli Radhakrishna Vs. Ito

cash 3 Vulli Radhakrishna vs. ITO deposits in bank: Rs.2,50,000/-; (iv) purchase of equity shares in a recognized stock exchange: Rs.3,76,565/-; and (v) sale of equity shares: Rs.1,68,662/-, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the AO. In compliance, the assessee filed

NIMMANA NARASIMHARAO,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ELURU

Bench: Us:

cash deposits of Rs.65,50,000/- as having been sourced out of the assessee’s undisclosed sources u/s 69 of the Act. 7 Nimmana Narasimharao 10. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), but without success. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) are culled out as under: 8 Nimmana Narasimharao

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TENALI vs. SURYAPRAKASARAO KANAPARTHY, BETHAPUDI, REPALLE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations, while for the appeal filed by the revenue having been rendered as academic in nature, is ...

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.239/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Suryaprakasarao Tenali. Kanaparthy, Bethapudi, Repalle, Bapatla. Pan: Dmqpk7509P (Appellant) (Respondent)

deposited. The other credits in the bank account have been received by the appellant from his company through RTGS/NEFT. Further it has been stated that all the funds received in this case is only from the company and does not belong to the appellant. Mere cash withdrawal from the bank account cannot constitute income. The AO has not been able

MAHANKALI JYOTHI,DUBLIN, USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

cash deposits from the following sources: (i) Own savings Rs. 18,75,000 (ii) Gift From Father in law Rs. 15,80,000 (iii) Gift from Mother Rs. 6,50,000 (iv) Gift from Brother Rs. 4,00,000 (v) Gift from Sister in law Rs. 1,60,000 (vi) Sale proceeds of plot

SRINIVASA RAO SIRIVURI PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

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

cash deposits, therefore, the A.O held the entire amount as having Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.459/VIZ/2025 Srinivasa Rao Sirivuri been sourced out of his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and determined the income at Rs.89,57,554/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee, aggrieved

TADIKONDA VAMSI MOHAN KRISHNA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

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’Ble

reassessment proceedings are also liable to be quashed as void-ab-inito.” 4 4. The only contention of the Ld. Authorized Representative [“Ld. AR”] is that the Ld. AO has mentioned about the cash deposits

RAMYA VADLAMUDI,GUDIWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GUDIWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.72/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ramya Vadlamudi Vs. Income Tax Officer 10-154, Opp. E-Seva Ward-2 Rajendra Nagar Gudiwada Gudiwada, Krishna Dist. [Pan : Ajnpv4972A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

cash credits / deposits as undisclosed income of the assessee for the F.Y.2016-17, relevant to the A.Y.2017-18 and accordingly brought to tax u/s 69A of the Act under the head “other sources” as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act 3 I.T.A. No.72/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Ramya Vadlamudi, Gudiwada and passed assessment order u/s 144 of the Act dated 17.12.2019, dismissing

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 77,74,200/- as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee U/s. 69A of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 77,74,200/- and passed the assessment order dated 30/01/2024. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 77,74,200/- as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee U/s. 69A of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 77,74,200/- and passed the assessment order dated 30/01/2024. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before

SAMATHAM GANGADHARA RAO,BHIMAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.320/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Samatham Gangadhara Rao V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 D.No. 19-22-5/3 Income Tax Office Sunkara Brahmaiah Nagar, J.P. Road, Sivaraopet Sbi Colony Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 [Pan:Amyps7071D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

cash deposits in the bank accounts of the appellant. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 5. Assessee also raised the following additional grounds and prayed for admitting the same, since it is legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter. i. The Notice dated 19.04.2022 issued

RAVI PRASAD BOYAPATI,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Cash deposits in S.B. Account No.146210100038143 with Andhra Bank : Rs.21,50,000/-, therefore, the AO held the same as having been sourced out of unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Also, the AO, in the absence of any explanation forthcoming as regards the interest income of Rs.47,031/-, made an addition of the same in the hands

RAVI PRASAD BOYAPATI,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

Cash deposits in S.B. Account No.146210100038143 with Andhra Bank : Rs.21,50,000/-, therefore, the AO held the same as having been sourced out of unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Also, the AO, in the absence of any explanation forthcoming as regards the interest income of Rs.47,031/-, made an addition of the same in the hands

GEDDA APPA RAO,UNDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.183/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Gedda Appa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.2-67, Sitaram Pet Ward-1 Undi Bhimavaram [Pan : Axopg9721M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 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 (Appeal) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053170768(1) Dated 25.05.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 11.12.2017 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income For A.Y.2013-14. The Ao Reopened The Case U/S 147 Of The Act On The Basis Of Information With Respect To Cash Deposit In 2

cash deposits in the Appellant’s bank account made by the Assessing Officer both on facts and in law. 3 I.T.A. No.183/Viz/2023,A.Y.2013-14 Gedda Appa Rao, West Godavari 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) ought to have appreciated that the reassessment

ANANDA AQUA EXPORTS,GANAPAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

cash deposits in bank in\nthe books of account could not have invoked the provisions of section 69\nof the IT Act.\n6. It is crucial and relevant to take note that the income escaping\nassessment is less than the threshold limit of Rs.50 lacs, therefore, it\nimpacts the determination of income escaping assessment and\ntheapplicability of statutory provisions such

DWARAMPUDI KRSS SUBBIREDDY L/R OF DWARAMPUDI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

cash deposits from his multi-facet sources of income, viz., (i). agriculture income: Rs.6,84,820/-; (ii) rental income: Rs. 2,10,000/-; and (iii) other income: Rs. 4,56,309/- but the said explanation did not find favour with the A.O. Accordingly, the A.O. determined the income vide his order passed u/s 144 of the Act, dated