KASAPU RAMESH BABU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the a.y. concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

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

u/s 148 shall be issued in faceless manner by the FAO. However, the notice in the case of the appellant was issued by the JAO. Hence, the notice is invalid. 3. The above legal issues were not raised before the lower authorities due to inadvertence. However, all the issues are purely legal in nature and the relevant facts are already

CHODAY JANAKI RAMAYYA CHOWDARY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits in bank account of the appellant. 5. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the A.O based on the information that the assessee during the subject year had carried out substantial financial transactions viz., (i) Cash deposits with syndicate Bank: Rs.76

VULLI RADHAKRISHNA,TUNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.359/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vulli Radhakrishna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tuni. Ward-1, Pan: Aegpv1751H Tuni. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 19/12/2025 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 (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short “A.O.”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 26/03/2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2 Vulli Radhakrishna Vs. Ito

u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in 4. sustaining the addition of Rs.11,79,160 made by the assessing officer towards unexplained payment of credit card bills. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in 5. sustaining

ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

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

u/s 143(2) dated 20-06-2023 by the Ld. Assessing Officer is invalid, being in direct contravention of CBDT Notification F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA.II dated 23-06-2017, and all subsequent proceedings initiated pursuant to such invalid notice are null and void in law, as consistently held by various judicial authorities. 5. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in treating