GO IRON MARKETING,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), VISHAKAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.483/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Go Iron Marketing, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(3), Pan: Aanfg6474D Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, Ca (Hybrid Hearing) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 26/07/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 01/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Go Iron Marketing Vs. Ito

133(6) of the Act to M/s National Enterprises. In response, M/s National Enterprises (supra) furnished the relevant documents, which revealed that the assessee firm had purchased “screened fines” for an amount of Rs. 3,25,67,200/-, from the aforementioned concern, on which tax was collected at source

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GVA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DHAMTARI

section 133 of the Act does not\nhave any evidentiary value. Further, Ld.AO has also observed in Paragraph\nNo.10 that the assessee has made payments through banking channels to the\nalleged suppliers thereby establishing the fact that the purchases have been\naccounted in the books of accounts and payments are made through banking\nchannels by the assessee. Further

GVA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

section 133 of the Act does not\nhave any evidentiary value. Further, Ld.AO has also observed in Paragraph\nNo.10 that the assessee has made payments through banking channels to the\nalleged suppliers thereby establishing the fact that the purchases have been\naccounted in the books of accounts and payments are made through banking\nchannels by the assessee. Further

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

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

133(6) of the Act, bank furnished\ndetails called for by the Ld. AO.\n6. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. AO did not accept\nthe explanations as the assessee has not produced the requisite supporting\ndocumentary evidences to establish the same. Thereafter, Ld. AO proceeded to\ncomplete the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144B

VENKATA RAMANA GODA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Venkata Ramana Goda, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Pan: Abzpg3216A Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 17/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 06/08/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 08/03/2025. The 2 Venkata Ramana Goda Vs. Acit

133(6) of the IT Act to obtain a clarity from LIC regarding the nature and details of the said 3 Venkata Ramana Goda vs. ACIT keyman insurance policy before assessing the same in assessee's hands. 7. The Learned CIT(A), while adjudicating the issue, erred in observing that the loan adjustments of M/s ARDEE BUSINESS SERVICES

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

133(6) of the Act. The A.O on perusal of the copy of the bank account of the assessee as was made available to him, observed that he had during the subject year made cash deposits of Rs.89,57,554/-. As the assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation regarding the sources of the aforesaid cash deposits, therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. L V BEACH CITY PROPERTY PROMOTERS, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 254/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Asst. Cit – Central Circle – 2 V. L.V. Beach City Property Promoters 40-25-19/A, Balaji Towers 5Th Floor, Shiva Towers Kogantivari Street, Patamatalanka Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry-533103 Vijayawada – 520010 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfl5214D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 3/Viz/2024 [आयकअपीलसं. से उत्पन्न / Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.254/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19)] L.V. Beach City Property Promoters V. Asst. Cit – Central Circle – 2 40-25-19/A, Balaji Towers 5Th Floor, Shiva Towers Kogantivari Street, Patamatalanka Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry-533103 Vijayawada – 520010 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aacfl5214D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व / Assessee Represented By : Shri M.V. Prasad, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

133 taxmann.com 288 (Delhi)] relied on by the Ld. CIT(A) while granting the relief to the assessee. He therefore pleaded that the order of the Assessing Officer be upheld. Page No. 6 I.T.A. No. 254/VIZ/2024 & C.O. No. 3/VIZ/2024 L.V. Beach City Property Promoters 9. Per contra, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] countering the arguments of the Ld. DR, Ld.AR

SMT. L SUDHA BALA, L/R OF LATE SRI L.NARSA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. THE DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE GUNTUR, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 147 are liable to be quashed. For this assertion, he has relied heavily on the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in the Case of CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Co., reported in (1989) 1980 ITR 319 (P&H), which has emphasized that when the main reason for reopening did not survive, the AO had no jurisdiction to proceed with

SMT. L SUDHA BALA, L/R OF LATE SRI L.NARSA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. THE DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE GUNTUR, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 147 are liable to be quashed. For this assertion, he has relied heavily on the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in the Case of CIT vs. Atlas Cycle Co., reported in (1989) 1980 ITR 319 (P&H), which has emphasized that when the main reason for reopening did not survive, the AO had no jurisdiction to proceed with

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)

133(6) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings Page No. 2 I.T.A.No.104/VIZ/2025 Nanneboyina Kalyan Chakravarthy Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.28,45,000/- into his ICICI Bank Limited bearing Account No. 630701078420 during the Financial year 2015-16. Assessee was asked to furnish the source for cash deposits. In response, assessee

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133(6) of the Act but has failed to do so. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee being a salaried employee, the provisions of section 69B of the Act are not applicable to the assessee. In response, the Ld. 14 DR submitted that the assessee has not submitted the balance sheet as he is a salaried individual

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133(6) of the Act but has failed to do so. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee being a salaried employee, the provisions of section 69B of the Act are not applicable to the assessee. In response, the Ld. 14 DR submitted that the assessee has not submitted the balance sheet as he is a salaried individual

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133(6) of the Act but has failed to do so. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee being a salaried employee, the provisions of section 69B of the Act are not applicable to the assessee. In response, the Ld. 14 DR submitted that the assessee has not submitted the balance sheet as he is a salaried individual

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133(6) of the Act but has failed to do so. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee being a salaried employee, the provisions of section 69B of the Act are not applicable to the assessee. In response, the Ld. 14 DR submitted that the assessee has not submitted the balance sheet as he is a salaried individual

SURYANARAYANA VANGAPALLI,HYDERABAD vs. THE DYCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

133 & 134/2015- 16/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2017-18 dated 19.4.2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. A search and seizure operation was conducted

GODDI KANNA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. THE DYCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

133 & 134/2015- 16/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2017-18 dated 19.4.2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. A search and seizure operation was conducted

SURYANARAYANA VANGAPALLI,HYDERABAD vs. THE DYCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

133 & 134/2015- 16/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2017-18 dated 19.4.2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. A search and seizure operation was conducted

GODDI KANNA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. THE DYCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

133 & 134/2015- 16/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2017-18 dated 19.4.2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. A search and seizure operation was conducted

SURYANARAYANA VANGAPALLI,HYDERABAD vs. THE DYCIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

133 & 134/2015- 16/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2017-18 dated 19.4.2017 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. A search and seizure operation was conducted