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

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 30.12.2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable

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

200/-; and (iii) had sold an immovable property of Rs.4,10,000/-, reopened the case vide notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 30/06/2021. Thereafter, the AO, based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal (2022) SCC Online SC 543, dated 04/05/2022, issued notice under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INFINITY TOWERS, SANKARMATHAM ROAD vs. AMMAJI CHENNUPATI, RAJEEVNAGAR, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the additional ground of cross-objection of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

200/- after raising a claim of exempt income of Rs. 72,77,892/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. 5. Thereafter, the A.O received information from the DDIT(Inv.), Unit- 7(1) & 7(3), Mumbai, that search and survey proceedings conducted on 5 ITA No.441/Viz/2024 & CO No.7/Viz/2025 Ammaji Chennupati certain accommodation entry providers had revealed that the assessee, being

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:

3. On a perusal of the above, we are of the considered view that there is a sufficient and reasonable cause ie., due to fracture of right side ankle of the assessee and the consequent medical treatment, the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal for the AYs 2015-16 within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, we hereby condone

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:

3. On a perusal of the above, we are of the considered view that there is a sufficient and reasonable cause ie., due to fracture of right side ankle of the assessee and the consequent medical treatment, the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal for the AYs 2015-16 within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, we hereby condone

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

200/-\nalleged to be unexplained, without properly appreciating or\nconsidering the material available on record.\n5. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have taken into cognizance that the\nproceedings conducted by the local JAO by issuance of notices u/s\n148A(d) and 148 of the IT Act, were not in accordance with the\nprovisions of the law.\n6. The proceedings initiated