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)

69A is not based on adequate evidence and hence requires to be deleted.” 5. In the result appeal for Assessment Order 2018-19 is hereby allowed. 10. The revenue being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. Also, the assessee is before us as a Cross Objector. 11. Sri G.V.N. Hari

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

Section 147 of the Act is not in issue. The only defect which could be pointed out is that the assessment year was not mentioned in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Unless it is shown that assessee was misled by not mentioning the assessment year in the reasons recorded, we are of the view that if the reasons

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

Section 147 of the Act is not in issue. The only defect which could be pointed out is that the assessment year was not mentioned in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Unless it is shown that assessee was misled by not mentioning the assessment year in the reasons recorded, we are of the view that if the reasons

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

Section 147 of the Act is not in issue. The only defect which could be pointed out is that the assessment year was not mentioned in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Unless it is shown that assessee was misled by not mentioning the assessment year in the reasons recorded, we are of the view that if the reasons

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

Section 147 of the Act is not in issue. The only defect which could be pointed out is that the assessment year was not mentioned in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Unless it is shown that assessee was misled by not mentioning the assessment year in the reasons recorded, we are of the view that if the reasons

NV VASANTHA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.72-76/Viz/2015 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12 Respectively) N.V.Vasantha Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.30-6-19/A Ward-3(1) Opp: 2 Town P.S. Visakhapatnam Dabagardens Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aahpv0349Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri, I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri, T.Satyanandham, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 06.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

Section 147 of the Act is not in issue. The only defect which could be pointed out is that the assessment year was not mentioned in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Unless it is shown that assessee was misled by not mentioning the assessment year in the reasons recorded, we are of the view that if the reasons

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 :

u/s 144B and 151A of the Act. The jurisdictional Assessing Officer (ITO Ward 1, Gudiwada) lacked authority and competence in issuing the said notices. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the order passed thereunder are vold ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,16,000/- made

VIKRAM BRAHMENDRA SATYAJIT MULPURI,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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.534/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Vikram Brahmendra Satyajit Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mulpuri, Ward-3(1), Krishna District. Vijayawada. Pan: Aonpm1893G (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 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

69A of the Act of Rs. 15,11,000/-, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 16,73,660/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. Shri C. Subrahmanyam

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:

147 r.w.s 144 of the Act by treating the cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 77,74,200/- as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee U/s. 69A of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 77,74,200/- and passed the assessment order dated 30/01/2024. Aggrieved by the order

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:

147 r.w.s 144 of the Act by treating the cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 77,74,200/- as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee U/s. 69A of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 77,74,200/- and passed the assessment order dated 30/01/2024. Aggrieved by the order

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

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

section 69A of the Act and determined the income at Rs.89,57,554/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, it is noticed from the record that

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

reassessment proceedings as void ab inito in as much as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) as against the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). 4. Without prejudice to Ground no 2 and 3, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.39,37,000 made u/s 69A

BHARGAV RAM MUNAGAPATI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated 23.01.2024. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee being an individual and has not filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration under section 139 of the Act. As per the information available with the department, the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.61

NARASIMHA RAO JAMMIGUMPULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NARASARAOPET

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

69A of the Act. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 4. Further, the assessee has also raised Additional Grounds of appeal as under: “1. The notice dated 07/04/2022 issued U/s. 148 of the Act is barred by limitation by virtue of 1st proviso to section

MARIA ROJALU POTHAKAMURI,NARSARAOPETA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NARSARAOPETA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee has raised various grounds challenging the assessment order. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of

u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 02.03.2024 for the AY 2015-16. 2 Maria Rojalu Pothakamuri 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee being an individual has not filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration under section 139 of the Act. As per the information available with

THOTA VENKATESWARA RAO,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.221/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Thota Venkateswara Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.67-21-12/4 Ward-1 Lb Nagar Ss Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Abipt6770F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

147 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining necessary approval. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 dated 02.08.2019 was issued and served on the assessee. The Ld.AO invoked the provisions of section 187(3) and also 197(b) of the Income Declaration Scheme in 2016 (IDS) and concluded that tax has not been paid as per IDS 2016 and the undisclosed

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)

69A of the Act to be taxed as per section 115BBE of the Act on 21.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,14,23,380/-. 3 I.T.A. No.171/Viz/2024, A.Y.2013-14 Manchukonda Ravi Kumar, Visakhapatnam 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) sustained