GANESH KUMAR PAIDI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

demonetization are liable to be rejected unless under specific conditions and circumstances. In view of this, I believe the action of the AO in bringing to tax, the unexplained money of Rs. 73,95,320/- u/s. 69A cannot be faulted. Hence, the grounds of appeal are dismissed and addition of Rs. 73,95,320/- is upheld. In result, the appeal

SATHI MANGAYAMMA,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAKINADA

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us :

demonetization period had rightly held that the same was sourced from her unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The Ground of Appeal No.3 is dismissed. 9 Sathi Mangayamma 16. We shall now deal with the Ld. AR's claim that the A.O. had erred in levying tax as per the special rates contemplated u/s 115BBE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI RAMAKRISHNA NUKALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Balakrishnan

demonetization period u/s 69A of the Act of Rs.1,68,54,000/-. 22. Before us, the ld.DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made the addition of Rs. 1,68,54,000/- under Section

DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BLACKBURN FUELS PRIVATE LIMITED, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Section 68 of the Act. 19. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact discernible from the record that the assessee company had, during the subject year, received an amount of Rs. 4.45 crores (supra) in its bank account by way of transfer through RTGS from the bank account No.044136000000904 of M/s. Infant Jesus Foundation held with Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Adyar

SRIDHAR YARLAGADDA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.311/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sridhar Yarlagadda, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), Pan: Abdpy4072 G Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

demonetization period is out of the cash withdrawal in the earlier period. Hence, cannot be said to be unexplained under section 68

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HIRAPANNA JEWELLERS, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.253/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Income Tax, D.No.48-19-5, Opp:Apsrtc Central Circle-1 Commercial Complex, Visakhapatnam Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.02/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.253/Viz/2020) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.48-19-5, Opp:Apsrtc Income Tax, Commercial Complex, Dwaraka Nagar Central Circle-1 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M]

section 68, the sum found credited in the books of accounts for which the assessee offers no explanation, the said sum is deemed to be income of the assessee. In the instant case the assessee had explained the source as sales, produced the sale bills and admitted the same as revenue receipt. The assessee is engaged in the jewellery business

PALADUGU RESHMA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.268/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Paladugu Reshma V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(3) D.No. 57-7-11 Income Tax Office New Postal Colony Cr Building, 1St Floor, Annex Kakatiya Clinic Road M.G.Road, Vijayawada Patamata, Vijayawada - 520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Amupp5831A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 69A by claiming that the cash deposits were recorded in the books of accounts such as bank account. The appellant has also claimed to have received monetary gifts in form of the financial support from her close relatives. The appellant stated that confirmation letters issued by them would be filed during the course of appellate proceedings. However, the same

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. TIRUMALA STEEL ENTERPRISES,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.73/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Tirumala Steel Enterprises, Tax, Circle-1(1), 26-8-62, Rajaram Mohan Roy Visakhapatnam. Road, Velampeta, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aalfs 6152 N (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 22/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.73/Viz/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sri Tirumala Steel Enterprises, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 26-8-62, Rajaram Mohan Roy Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Road, Velampeta, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aalfs 6152 N (Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

68 and 69 cannot be invoked, invoking the provisions of section 115BBE is not valid in law. The Ld. AR also submitted that the Revenue has not raised any ground regarding telescoping benefit while filing the appeal. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 6. We have heard both the parties

SUJAN VIKAS MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PORANKI, KRISHNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4) , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.41/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Sujan Vikas Mutually Aided Cooperative Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(4) Thrift & Credit Society Limited C.R. Building, Vijayawada-520001 6-32, Bjr Nagar Andhra Pradesh Near Sri Chaitanya Junior College Poranki – 521137 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aajas8586P] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sitaraman & Shri Shankar Cherukupally राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr Ar

demonetization period assessee Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.41/VIZ/2024 Sujan Vikas Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Limited deposited cash of Rs.1,81,66,569/- out of which Rs.6,98,569/- were valid/new notes and the balance Rs.1,74,68,000/- was in the form of Specified Bank Notes. The explanations furnished by the assessee was examined by the Ld.AO

VENKATA NARASIMHAM THOTA,KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAKINADA

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.207/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18) Venkata Narasimham Thota, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Veeravaram, Kirlampudi. Ward-2, Pan: Achpt2895H Kakinada. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Boda Anand Kumar, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 27/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

demonetization period”. 3. Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 16/12/2019, in the absence of a duly substantiated explanation of the assessee regarding the nature and source of the cash deposits of Rs. 20,28,000/- made in his bank accounts during the subject year, added the same as his unexplained money

PENMATSA RAMA KRISHNA VARMA,BHIMAVARAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

demonetization period in SBNs and treated the same to be 8 taxable u/s. 68 of the Act, on the premise that SBNs ceased to be a legal tender w.e.f 8/11/2016 vide Notification in S.O. No. 3407(E), dated 8/11/2016. Section

THE GUDIVADA CO-OP URBAN BANK LIMITED,GUDIVADA vs. ASSITANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.03/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2017-18) The Gudivada Co-Operative Urban Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Bank Limited, Income Tax, Gudivada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Aaaat 2586 R Vijayawada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

section 68 of the Act considering that the assessee society is a scheduled bank governed by the RBI regulations and accepting cash deposits is not a violation within such deposits were accepted under normal banking business. 6. For these and other reasons that are to be urged at the time of hearing of the case prayer of the assessee society

MAHANKALI JYOTHI,DUBLIN, USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

demonetization period. In the online responses filed by the assessee in response to the information called for by the Ld. AO in relation to cash deposits, the assessee claimed the deposits as a receipt of gifts, personal savings and sale proceeds of the property. Subsequently, a detailed show cause notice U/s. 142(1) was issued calling for details / evidence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. RAMAKRISHNA NUKALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Balakrishnan

demonetization period u/s 69A of Rs. 1,68,54,000/-. (3) Part of the agricultural income is considered as income u/s 69A to the tune of Rs. 20,93,704/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer on the above additions and denial of deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before

DUPAGUNTLA PULLARAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.112/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Dupaguntla Pullarao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Bhmpd9811Q Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 29/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

demonetization period to the tune of Rs. 43,68,500/- in the light of the ITS data verified and confirmed. Since the assessee did not comply to the notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act with regard to filing of the return for the AY 2017-18 on or before 23/12/2017, the Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment

PEELA GOVIND APPARAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.16/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18)

demonetization period as unexplained cash deposits and made an addition u/s. 68 of the Act and U/s. 115BBE of the Act. But the said amount pertains to the sale proceeds of the assessee. This fact was not considered by the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and erred in invoking the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR vs. BHRATHI CONSUMER CARE PRODUCTS PVT LTD, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 249/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bharathi Consumer Care Central Circle-1, Products Private Limited, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Sy. No. 280, 281, Peddaparimi Lakshmipuram Main Road, Village, Nidumukkala Post, Guntur-522007, Guntur – 522016, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadcb 9107 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 17/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 249/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) M/S. Bharathi Consumer Care Vs. Dcit, Products Private Limited, Central Circle-1, Sy. No. 280, 281, Peddaparimi 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Village, Nidumukkala Post, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur – 522016, Guntur-522007, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aadcb 9107 B (Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

demonetization period. The assessee claimed that the source of such cash deposits was loan from Sri Arunachalam Manickavel, one of the Directors of the assessee company. The Ld. AO called for confirmation from Sri Arunachalam Manickavel wherein Mr. Arunachalam Manickavel has confirmed that the amount of cash loan was out of money received from M/s. Gowtham Buddha Textile Park

KONATHALA NOOKU NAIDU,ANAKAPALLE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , ANAKAPALLE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.269/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Konathala Nooku Naidu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Anakapalle. Ward-1, Pan: Aczpn 4551 C Anakapalle. (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 : 12/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 18/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

section 69A of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the assessed income at Rs. 30,68,089/- and completed the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26/12/2019. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. On appeal, the assessee made various submissions before