ARIMILLI RAMA KRISHNA,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

9 I.T.A.No.639/VIZ/2025 Arimilli Rama Krishna 12. Before proceeding further, we deem it apposite to observe that it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the AO had issued notice under section 148 of the Act, 30.03.2019, wherein he had called upon the assessee to file his return of income in compliance thereto, Page

NO 368 KOLAKALURU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

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.455/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) No. 368 Kolakaluru Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co- Ward-1, Operative Credit Society Tenali. Limited, Tenali. Pan: Aaban6994Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 25/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The 2 No. 368 Kolakaluru Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Vs. Ito

reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 2. The notice dated 06/04/2022 issued Us. 148 of the Act is invalid inasmuch as the approval was granted by Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax which is contrary to the provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act.” 4. As the assessee-society by raising the aforesaid additional grounds of appeal has assailed

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)

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a)any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b)any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MURALIKRISHNA VADDI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.494/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Muralikrishna Vaddi Circle 3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Pan: Awmpv9717D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Chakradhar, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 04/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of Foreign Tax Credit and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The concluding part of the assessment order is as under: “Therefore, the assessee claimed tax relief u/s 90/90A (2 of schedule TR) amounting to Rs.37,63,898/- is added

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISKAHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year. From the plain reading of the same, any return filed u/s 153A shall be deemed to have been filed as u/s 139 of the Act. Various judicial pronouncements have held that penalty

UPPALAPADU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,UPPALAPADU, GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan Sआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.523/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Uppalapadu Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Ward-2(1), Society Limited, Guntur. Uppalapadu, Guntur. Pan: Aaaau4669G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती Shri R. Siva Rama Krishna, "ारा/Assessee By: Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.01.2024 Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Read With Sections 144 & 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Uppalapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited Vs. Ito

reassessment proceedings are invalid and void ab initio.” 3 Uppalapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited vs. ITO 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee, a primary agricultural credit co-operative society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co- operative Societies Act, 1964, had not filed its return of income for the AY 2018-19 within the time prescribed by section 139

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

139: Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice. Explanation

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,,WRANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

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

9. Though, assessee had claimed that the cash deposits were made out of cash given by Smt. U.Rajya Lakshmi for the purpose of purchase of agricultural and urban lands on behalf of her, the assessee could not produce any evidence to substantiate his claim either before the Ld.CIT(A) or before AO. During the appeal hearing also, the Ld.A.R failed

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,,WARANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

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

9. Though, assessee had claimed that the cash deposits were made out of cash given by Smt. U.Rajya Lakshmi for the purpose of purchase of agricultural and urban lands on behalf of her, the assessee could not produce any evidence to substantiate his claim either before the Ld.CIT(A) or before AO. During the appeal hearing also, the Ld.A.R failed

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,,WRANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

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

9. Though, assessee had claimed that the cash deposits were made out of cash given by Smt. U.Rajya Lakshmi for the purpose of purchase of agricultural and urban lands on behalf of her, the assessee could not produce any evidence to substantiate his claim either before the Ld.CIT(A) or before AO. During the appeal hearing also, the Ld.A.R failed

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,,,WRANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

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

9. Though, assessee had claimed that the cash deposits were made out of cash given by Smt. U.Rajya Lakshmi for the purpose of purchase of agricultural and urban lands on behalf of her, the assessee could not produce any evidence to substantiate his claim either before the Ld.CIT(A) or before AO. During the appeal hearing also, the Ld.A.R failed

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,,WRANGAL vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

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

9. Though, assessee had claimed that the cash deposits were made out of cash given by Smt. U.Rajya Lakshmi for the purpose of purchase of agricultural and urban lands on behalf of her, the assessee could not produce any evidence to substantiate his claim either before the Ld.CIT(A) or before AO. During the appeal hearing also, the Ld.A.R failed

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,, WRANGAL,WRANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

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

9. Though, assessee had claimed that the cash deposits were made out of cash given by Smt. U.Rajya Lakshmi for the purpose of purchase of agricultural and urban lands on behalf of her, the assessee could not produce any evidence to substantiate his claim either before the Ld.CIT(A) or before AO. During the appeal hearing also, the Ld.A.R failed

SRI DHARIPALLI SAMPATH,, ,WRANGAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

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

9. Though, assessee had claimed that the cash deposits were made out of cash given by Smt. U.Rajya Lakshmi for the purpose of purchase of agricultural and urban lands on behalf of her, the assessee could not produce any evidence to substantiate his claim either before the Ld.CIT(A) or before AO. During the appeal hearing also, the Ld.A.R failed

POTHINA SATYANARAYANA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, 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.568/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pothina Satyanarayana, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-2(5), Pan: Ahdpp1312N Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 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, Delhi, Dated 10/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Pothina Satyanarayana Vs. Ito

139(1) of the Act, reopened his case under section 147 of the Act. Order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 04/04/2022 was passed by the AO. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 148 3 Pothina Satyanarayana vs. ITO of the Act, dated 04/04/2022 calling upon the assessee to file his return of income. 3. The assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. QUALITY STEEL SHOPPE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the Cross Objection No

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Viz/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Quality Steel Shoppe Ward-2(1), Private Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaacq1115D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 18/Viz/2024 (In आ.अपी.सं /454/Viz/2024) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19)

139: Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice. Explanation

VENKATA PRASAD PULIPATI,AMARAVATHI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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.612/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Venkata Prasad Pulipati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Amaravathi. Ward-2(1), Pan: Asapp8796L Guntur. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

139: Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that 11 Venkata Prasad Pulipati vs. ITO the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority

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)

9. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who concurred with the explanation of the assessee that the credits in his bank account were the remittances made by his employer company, viz., M/s. Sai Marines Exports Private Limited (supra) through RTGS/NEFT, i.e., an explained source, and could not be brought within the meaning of section