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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI APPARAO MUKKAMALA, USA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

natural justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma AIR 1996 SC 1669 that violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate proceedings? 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, whether the CIT(Appeals) is justified

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

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

MANCHUKONDA RAVI KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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.171/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Manchukonda Ravi Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Manchukonda Vijaya Lakshmi Ward-1(1) Jewellery Visakhapatnam D.No.25-8-244 Main Road, Kurupam Market Visakhapatnam [Pan :Biypm4983M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

reassessment proceedings as void ab initio. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,14,23,380 made u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits in bank account of the appellant. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal

YALAMARTHI LAKSHMI,YANAM vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1,, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.189/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Yalamarthi Lakshmi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Yanam. Ward-1, Pan: Abhpy4417B Kakinada. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

147 r.w.s 144B of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act by observing as under: “5. The appellant

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,PONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

nature, these appeals are clubbed and a consolidated order being passed. We now take up the appeal in ITA No. 337/VIZ/2024 for the A.Y.2014-15 as a lead appeal. 3. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065943292

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

nature, these appeals are clubbed and a consolidated order being passed. We now take up the appeal in ITA No. 337/VIZ/2024 for the A.Y.2014-15 as a lead appeal. 3. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065943292

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,PONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

nature, these appeals are clubbed and a consolidated order being passed. We now take up the appeal in ITA No. 337/VIZ/2024 for the A.Y.2014-15 as a lead appeal. 3. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065943292

SRI SAHASRALINGESWARA SWAMY,PONNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, GUNTUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis for the A

Bench: The Tribunal, The Assessee Filed Appeals (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Respective Din & Order No. As Stated Below: -

nature, these appeals are clubbed and a consolidated order being passed. We now take up the appeal in ITA No. 337/VIZ/2024 for the A.Y.2014-15 as a lead appeal. 3. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065943292

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)

147/-) which are taken and repaid during the FY and the Ld. AO has verified and examined the relevant documents, financial statements, books of accounts etc., submitted by the assessee before the Ld. AO and hence it is not correct to state that proper verification has not been carried on by the AO. 8. The Ld. Pr. CIT is erred

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:

reassessment proceedings as void ab initio. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No.2 and Ground No.3, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed the AO to estimate reasonable percentage of profit in respect of cash deposits of Rs. 83,90,900/- in the bank account as against addition made by the AO U/s. 69A of the Act. 5. Any other

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

SATYANARAYANA KODURU,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIWADA

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.491/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyanarayana Koduru, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Krishna District. Ward-1, Pan:Altpk1048C Gudiwada. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 02/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm :

justice, equity, and fair play.” 2. Succinctly stated, the AO gathered information that was flagged as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through ITBA that the assessee during the year had carried out substantial financial transactions, viz., (i) deposits with Allahabad Bank: Rs. 14,40,000/-; (ii) cash deposits with State Bank of Hyderabad: Rs. 3 Satyanarayana Koduru

MUDUNURI VENKATA SUBBARAJU,WEST GODAVARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

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.284/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mudunuri Venkata Subbaraju V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 5-205/2, Dommeru Aayakar Bhavan, 35-29-2 Near Reliance Tower Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Gowthaminagar S.O. Andhra Pradesh Kovvur, West Godavari – 534350 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Cupps3676D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparnavilluri, Sr.Ar

Justice.” 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. “1. The notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 dt. 06.04.2022 is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of section

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:

natural justice. 3. The disposal of the appeal ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act which obligates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. The Ld. Assessing officer NFAC who completed the assessment is not the jurisdictional officer, since assessee

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:

natural justice. 3. The disposal of the appeal ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act which obligates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. The Ld. Assessing officer NFAC who completed the assessment is not the jurisdictional officer, since assessee