GMEDAPADU PACS,EAST GODAVARI vs. ITO, WARD-1, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.573/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Gmedapadu Pacs, Vs. Income Tax Officer, East Godavari District, Ward-1, Andhra Pradesh. Kakinada. Pan: Aaaag8455A (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri Kss Sarma, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 18/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 10/02/2021 For Ay 2018-19. The Assessee Society Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Ao On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

natural justice and the binding precedent of the Apex Court. I have carefully considered this ground and the applicability of the cited Supreme Court decision. The ruling in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. pertains specifically to reassessment

SRINIVASA RAO ARNEPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.153/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Srinivasa Rao Arnepalli Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bhavishya Edible Oil Refinery Income Tax 140/1, Kodurupadu Vijayawada Bapulapadu Mandalam Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aftpa9285K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

natural justice. 4. The only contention of the assessee is that the assessee filed reply before the PCIT, but the Ld.PCIT without considering the submissions, without according second and subsequent opportunity to submit further information to substantiate the assessee’s case proceeded with revision proceedings and passed order u/s 263 dated 16.03.2022, without calling for further information, documentary evidences, books

GAIRUBOINA SUBBAIAH L/R OF LATE GAIRUBOINA SAMBASIVA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

reassessment\nproceedings as void ab initio.\n5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have\ndeleted the addition of Rs.29,50,000 made by assessing officer u/s 69A of the\nAct towards unexplained cash deposits in bank account.\nPage No. 3\n6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have\ndeleted the addition of Rs.10

PADARTHI VENKATA SIVANAGENDRA PRASADA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

natural justice, we consider it deem fit to provide one\nmore final opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the\nLd.CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to provide one more opportunity of\nbeing heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed for furnishrelevant\ndocuments before Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments,\nfailing which

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

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

justice.\n3. The disposal of the appeal in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) is against\ntheprovisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.\n4. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that when\nassessee has explained the sources before the AO for the deposits made in\nbank account, with cogent reasons, the learned

GANDEM NAGESWARA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAKAPALLE

reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed as void-ab-initio. 2. The notice issued U/s. 148 of the Act on 16/03/2023 by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid inasmuch as the same was in contravention of the scheme notified U/s. 151A of the Act.” 3. At the outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 46 days

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

natural justice.\n4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the\nimpugned order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act,\n1961, wherein, the issue relates to cash deposits of Rs. 77,74,200/-\nalleged to be unexplained, without properly appreciating or\nconsidering the material available on record

SUNIL KUMAR PEJJAI,CHILAKALURIPETA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

justice-oriented and liberal approach should be taken while dealing with the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, taking a judicial and liberal approach, we condone the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following

SREEPADA VENKATASUBBAMMA,ACHANTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALAKOL

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.29/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sreepada Venkatasubbamma Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.4-166 Ward-1 Brahmana Veedhi Palakol Penumanchili, Achanta West Godavari Dist [Pan : Djzps9581M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

reassessment proceedings as void-ab-initio. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No.2 and Ground No.3, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have directed the assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs.1,87,73,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act towards alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts. 5. Any other grounds may be urged

KAPIL INFRA AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.258/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kapil Infra Avenues Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Aadck 4944 P Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 26/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

reassessment proceedings, it was observed by the Ld. 3 AO that the assessee has paid interest on sale advances ranged from 10% to 14% and average interest rate of 12% was applied to arrive at pro rata finance cost disallowance. The interest cost on diverted funds of Rs. 7,44,03,750/- at 12% works

JAGAN MOHAN RAO VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

natural justice.\n3.\nThat the impugned appellate order has been passed in violation of\nthe mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961,\nwhich require the Commissioner (Appeals) to state the points for\ndetermination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision.\nPage. No 2\nI.T.A.No.468/VIZ/2025\nSai Sri Anusha Valluru\nI.T.A.No.469/VIZ/2025\nJagan Mohan

SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

natural justice.\n3.\nThat the impugned appellate order has been passed in violation of\nthe mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961,\nwhich require the Commissioner (Appeals) to state the points for\ndetermination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision.\nPage. No 2\nI.T.A.No.468/VIZ/2025\nSai Sri Anusha Valluru\nI.T.A.No.469/VIZ/2025\nJagan Mohan

MEKA VIRAJ GOPAL APPARAO,NUZVID vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.232/Viz./2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Meka Viraj Gopal Apparao, Kotapadu Estate, Nuzvid The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mandal, Krishna Ward-3(1), District. Vijayawada – 520 002. Pin – 521 201. Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mv Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 आदेश/Order

natural justice. 5. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the case on merits even though the appeal was rejected on pure technical issue and should have been disposed of on merits. Therefore, it is requested that the assessment may annulled and restored back to the Assessing Officer to reconsideration

MAHALAKSHMI SANAGALA,VUYYURU vs. INOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

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

natural justice.\n4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the\nimpugned order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act, 1961,\nwherein, the issue relates to cash deposits of Rs. 8,00,000/-alleged to be\nunexplained, without properly appreciating or considering the material\navailable on record

ASHOK RUDRARAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 439/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ashok Rudraraju, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aqvpr4058L

justice and take into account any further submissions which it has to file during the course of the said proceedings. The AO should also conduct all necessary enquiries to verify the submissions filed by the appellant. The appellant is also directed to comply with all the notices/correspondences issued by the AO. 6.6 Ground No. 6 to 8 are general

SRI KOTI LINGA HARI HARA MAHAKSHETRAM TEMPLE,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WD, RAJAHMUNDRY

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Koti Linga Hari Hara Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahakshetram Temple, Exemption Ward, Visakhapatnam. Rajahmundry. Pan: Acgfs3064C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Cr Hemanth Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 07/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

natural justice and depriving the appellant of a fair opportunity to be heard. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the Order of the Assessing officer bringing to tax the excess of expenditure over income of Rs. 12,35,291/- 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred

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:

reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2015-16 are without jurisdiction, and hence the notice issued under section 148 and subsequent proceedings are Shaik Saida vs. ITO quashed. Accordingly, the assessment completed under section 147 of the Act is liable to quashed. Thus the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 14. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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:

reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2015-16 are without jurisdiction, and hence the notice issued under section 148 and subsequent proceedings are Shaik Saida vs. ITO quashed. Accordingly, the assessment completed under section 147 of the Act is liable to quashed. Thus the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 14. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case