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

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

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

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

6\nI.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited --\naccommodation entries is nothing but money laundering activity, which isa\npunishable offence under PMLA.\n11.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in allowing relief to the assessee, keeping\nin view of the fact that the assessee company had reduced its taxable profits, by\navailing

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

6\nI.T.A.Nos. 137, 138 & 139/VIZ/2025\nI.T.A.Nos.221, 222 & 223 /VIZ/2025\nM/s. GVA Industries Private Limited --\naccommodation entries is nothing but money laundering activity, which isa\npunishable offence under PMLA.\n11.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in allowing relief to the assessee, keeping\nin view of the fact that the assessee company had reduced its taxable profits, by\navailing

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

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

CHODISETTY HEMASHANKAR,TUNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

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’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Chodisetty Hemashankar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Akupc 0617 K Tuni. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 19/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

133(6) of the Act, wherein the assessee maintains his bank accounts which involved in the alleged cash deposits. Thus, the Ld. AO completed the assessment U/s. 144 of the Act and brought to tax the total cash deposits of Rs. 83,90,900/- as 3 unexplained money of the assessee U/s. 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the assessed income

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

Bench: Us:

133(6) of the Act called for the copies of the bank account statements of the assessee from the banks. Also, the AO sought for directions of the Addl. CIT, Eluru Range, Eluru vide his letter dated 16.09.2019. 5. As is discernible from the record, the assessee finally in response to notices issued earlier, had filed a letter dated

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHAN RAO KODURI,EAST GODHAVARI vs. ACIT, CIRLCE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order” 10. She also reiterated in her written submissions the various scenario under which the penalty under section 270A leviable, which is reproduced below: - Scenarios Applicability for assessee’s case a. when the assessed income is Not Applicable since there is no greater than the returned income; difference between assessed income and (refer 270A

VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA MOHANA RAO KODURI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order” 10. She also reiterated in her written submissions the various scenario under which the penalty under section 270A leviable, which is reproduced below: - Scenarios Applicability for assessee’s case a. when the assessed income is Not Applicable since there is no greater than the returned income; difference between assessed income and (refer 270A

SATYA VENKATA KRISHNA RAVI PRASAD KODURI,EAST GODHAVARI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

6 challenges the revisionary proceedings initiated by\nthe Ld.Pr.CIT under section 263 of the Act. On this issue, Ld. Authorised\nRepresentative [hereinafter “Ld.AR"] submitted that the Ld. AO during the\nassessment proceedings did not initiate the penalty under section 270A of the\nAct. She vehemently argued that the failure of the Ld. AO to initiate the\npenalty proceedings cannot make

SATYA VENKATA KRISHNA RAVI PRASAD KODURI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, RAJAHMUNDRY

6\nRajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Keshrimal Parashmal [27 Taxman\n447 (Rajasthan)]. She also placed reliance on the following cases:\ni.\nACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi)\nii.\nCIT V. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. reported in [2018]\n92taxmann.com 329 (Madras)\niii.\nMumbai ITAT in the case of GM Builders

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA vs. SREELAKSHMI MUSUNURU, PENAMALURU

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Ward-2(3), Penamaluru. Vijayawada. Pan: Aojpm4884K (Appellant) (Respondent)

6 (Page 129 to 131 of APB), vide her letter dated 23.11.2015 filed with the A.O in the course of the original assessment proceedings, disclosed all the primary facts regarding the purchase of agricultural land at Gangur (Page 133- 135 of APB), she was not required to give any further assistance to the AO by disclosure of other facts. Rather