TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

reassessment notice issued by the Ld. AO is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and hence the assessment framed U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act deserves to be quashed. Thus, the Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 10. With respect to Grounds No. 3, 4, 5 & 6, since the legal ground raised

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

reassessment notice issued by the Ld. AO is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and hence the assessment framed U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act deserves to be quashed. Thus, the Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 10. With respect to Grounds No. 3, 4, 5 & 6, since the legal ground raised

TADISETTI MURALI MOHAN,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

reassessment notice issued by the Ld. AO is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and hence the assessment framed U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act deserves to be quashed. Thus, the Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 10. With respect to Grounds No. 3, 4, 5 & 6, since the legal ground raised

AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Us:

investment. Hence lam of the view that accretion to the reserves because of this entry should be taxed as unexplained income. Ground of appeal no.3 is dismissed. Assessment Year 2007-08 is the relevant year under consideration. The block asset value as per Fixed Assets (Schedule-4) for land of appellant company is as follows. Opening balance of land

KODALI SURESH BABU,LABBIPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VIJAYAWADA

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. (It). A. No.231/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2016-17) Kodali Suresh Babu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Labbipet. Ward (International Taxation), Pan: Atwpk 8835 C Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 18/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

unexplained investment in purchases of property. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not accepting the amount of Rs. 95,00,000/- paid by the father of the appellant as a source for the investment in purchase of property. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 5. 4. Grounds No. 1 & 5 are general

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA vs. SREELAKSHMI MUSUNURU, PENAMALURU

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Ward-2(3), Penamaluru. Vijayawada. Pan: Aojpm4884K (Appellant) (Respondent)

unexplained investments U/s. 69 of the Act. 6. Apart from that, the AO observed that the assessee had, though advanced an amount of Rs. 82 lakhs through banking channels on 30/03/2013, but had failed to come forth with any explanation regarding the source of the said advance. Accordingly, the AO made an addition of the aforesaid amount

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

unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act towards purchase of an immovable property: Rs.33,88,000/-, determined his income at Rs.52,43,830/-. 4 Venkata Prasad Pulipati vs. ITO 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

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

unexplained investment made under section 69 of Rs.21,35,549/-. Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi vs. ACIT 11. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 12. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 13. We have heard the Learned Authorised Representatives

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

unexplained investment made under section 69 of Rs.21,35,549/-. Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi vs. ACIT 11. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 12. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 13. We have heard the Learned Authorised Representatives

GATTULA LAKSHMI MADHAVI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

unexplained investment made under section 69 of Rs.21,35,549/-. Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi vs. ACIT 11. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. 12. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 13. We have heard the Learned Authorised Representatives

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DUVVURU REKHA REDDY, KURMANNAPALEM

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam -530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C] सी.ओ सं. / C.O. No. 17/Viz/2024 [आयकरअपीलसं.से उत्पन्न/I.T.A.No.450/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)] Vs. Income Tax Officer –Ward– 2(5) Duvvuru Rekha Reddy 2Nd Floor, Infinity Towers Flat No. 402, Vizag Profile Towers Sankaramatam Road Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam - 530016 Visakhapatnam - 530046 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afdpr3780C]

investment in the Company Steel Exchange India Ltd. The assessee also furnished evidence for Preferential allotment of shares. 3. Not convinced with the submissions as well as evidence produced by the assessee, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] considered the sale proceeds of the shares of Rs.3,87,36,001/- as unexplained cash credit under section

THE SOCIETY OF JESUS MARY JOSEPH SNEHALAYA,MANGALAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 08.12.2023 for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also got registered under section 12A of IT Act, 1961 vide proceedings of CIT, Guntur No. 1/137/GNT/87-88 dated 28.12.1990. Specific information was flagged

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

P.SUDARSHAN,,`VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), , VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.53/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) P.Sudarshan Vs. Income Tax Officer 33-12-35, Devangula Veedhi Ward-1(2) Allipuram Direct Taxes Building Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Ahwpp6272G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Sanjeevarao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 31.01.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

unexplained source for cash deposits. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) also directed the AO to estimate the profit at 3.5% on the turnover. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us and raised the following grounds : 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1 [for short CIT(a)-1] erred

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

SUNKARA KOTIPALLI NAIDU ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.299/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sunkara Kotipalli Naidu V. Income Tax Officer –Ward- Chettupalli Village (International Taxation) Narsipatnam Mandal Income Tax Office Visakhapatnam Infinity Towers Andhra Pradesh – 531116 Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam [Pan: Dzdps4163R] Andhra Pradesh,530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

147 r.w.s. 144C(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „Act‟) dated 28.05.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2024- 25/1065196685(1) for the A.Y. 2016-17. I.T.A.No.299/VIZ/2024 Sunkara Kotipalli Naidu 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee is a Non-Resident Individual and has not filed his return of income. Based on the NMS data

SURYASRI POULTRY COMPLEX,KAPAVARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD_1,, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.188/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Suryasri Poultry Complex V. Ito – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office D.No. 4-148, Rajanagaram Road Deepthi Towers Biccavolu Mandal, Kapavaram Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 East Godavari – 533343 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Abgfs6509P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

147 of the Act. Assessee failed to respond to SCN. Thereafter the Ld. AO proceeded to Page No. 2 I.T.A.No.188/VIZ/2024 Suryasri Poultry Complex complete the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making the following additions: - Sl.No. Details Amount 1. Unexplained Money under section

EROTHI LATHA RANI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 184/Viz/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2009-10) Erothi Latha Rani V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 4(1) D.No. 34-10-1/B Income Tax Office Daya’S Street, Gnanapuram Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530004 M.V.P. Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aavpe7676H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 185/Viz/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2009-10) Erothi Purnima Rani V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 4(1) D.No. 34-10-1/B Income Tax Office Daya’S Street, Gnanapuram Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530004 M.V.P. Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aavpe7311H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). Thereafter proceeded to issue notice under section 148 of the Act on 29.03.2016. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed the return of income on 20.04.2016 admitting a total income of Rs.60,600/- representing the interest income. Subsequently, notices under section

EROTHI PURNIMA RANI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 184/Viz/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2009-10) Erothi Latha Rani V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 4(1) D.No. 34-10-1/B Income Tax Office Daya’S Street, Gnanapuram Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530004 M.V.P. Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aavpe7676H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 185/Viz/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2009-10) Erothi Purnima Rani V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 4(1) D.No. 34-10-1/B Income Tax Office Daya’S Street, Gnanapuram Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530004 M.V.P. Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aavpe7311H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). Thereafter proceeded to issue notice under section 148 of the Act on 29.03.2016. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed the return of income on 20.04.2016 admitting a total income of Rs.60,600/- representing the interest income. Subsequently, notices under section