RANAR AGROCHEM LIMITED,PARAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.288/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Ranar Agrochem Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaccp0372M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M. Madhusudan, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Jenardhanan V, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 31/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15/05/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) Dated 30/12/2016 For A.Y.

natural justice, A.O is directed to examine this issue, only on receipt of clear submission/evidence from appellant, and accordingly decide. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. 5.6 Ground No. 5 relates to addition of Rs. 3,47,97,000/- applying the provisions u/s. 68 of the Act. During the year the appellant company had introduced unsecured loans aggregating

ARAVIND REDDY DEVAGIRI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2(2), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.267/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Aravind Reddy Devagiri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward 2(2) 14-19-35, 1St Lane Vijayapuri Guntur Andhra Pradesh Jkc College Road, Guntur 522006 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Auepd7820R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

justice.” 5. Ground Nos. 1, 8 & 9 are general in nature and needs no adjudication. 6. Ground Nos.2 & 3 are with respect to the addition of Rs.1,94,99,178/- made under section 68

THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

nature. No adjudication is required, therefore, same is dismissed. 15. Ground No. 2 is relating to sustenance of addition of Rs.19,00,000/- towards unexplained unsecured loans. ITA No.323 &392/VIZ/2017 (Gowthami Builders) 16. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted in respect of the above addition as under:- “Unsecured loans:- It is noticed from the balance sheet

ITO, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

nature. No adjudication is required, therefore, same is dismissed. 15. Ground No. 2 is relating to sustenance of addition of Rs.19,00,000/- towards unexplained unsecured loans. ITA No.323 &392/VIZ/2017 (Gowthami Builders) 16. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted in respect of the above addition as under:- “Unsecured loans:- It is noticed from the balance sheet

GOWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

nature. No adjudication is required, therefore, same is dismissed. 15. Ground No. 2 is relating to sustenance of addition of Rs.19,00,000/- towards unexplained unsecured loans. ITA No.323 &392/VIZ/2017 (Gowthami Builders) 16. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted in respect of the above addition as under:- “Unsecured loans:- It is noticed from the balance sheet

M/S. COWTHAMI BUILDERS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble & M/S. Gowthami Builders, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ito, Ward-1(4), Vs. M/S. Gowthami Builders, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 48-3-6, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aaifg 6738 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

nature. No adjudication is required, therefore, same is dismissed. 15. Ground No. 2 is relating to sustenance of addition of Rs.19,00,000/- towards unexplained unsecured loans. ITA No.323 &392/VIZ/2017 (Gowthami Builders) 16. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted in respect of the above addition as under:- “Unsecured loans:- It is noticed from the balance sheet

KANCHAN LALWANI,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act, there should be books of account and in the said books of account there shall be cash credit and the same has not been explained by the assessee to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. In the present case, the Assessing Officer made addition towards cash deposits on the basis of bank pass book which

VALLABHAI PATEL KOTTAPALLI,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VIJAYAWADA

natural justice.\n4.\nThat the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the\nimpugned order passed u/s 143 r.w.s 144 of the IT Act, 1961, wherein, the\nissue relates to cash deposits of Rs. 11,69,500/- alleged to be unexplained,\nwithout properly appreciating or considering the material available on\nrecord.\nPage No. 3\nI.T.A

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

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal. 7. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income

BODDAPALLI HEMA SUNDARA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "68

MURALI KRISHNA KOMMINENI,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.299/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Muralikrishna Kommineni Vs. Income Tax Officer 17, Sbi Colony Ward-2 Chinna Bondilipuram Srikakulam Srikakulam [Pan : Bcxpk3244G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

natural justice. 4 I.T.A. No.299/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Murali Krishna Kommineni, Srikakulam 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) failed to take note of the evidences filed before him in line with the provisions of rule 46A of IT rules. To this extent the learned CIT(A) failed to render justice taking due cognizance of the evidences filed before

ANGADALA RAMAKRISHNA,VELERU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GUDIVADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.242/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ramakrishna Angadala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7-121/B, Veeravalli, Bapulapadu, Ward-1, Krishna District-521110, Gudivada. Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Brwpa7639F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

68,520/- from the Government on acquisition of land for Polavaram Canal on 08/07/2015 and the said amount was withdrawn and utilized for purchase of land in his name and that a part of the amount was also advanced to relatives as hand loans and that the amounts are repaid by the relatives to the tune

SIONC PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.40/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Sionc Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of D.No.43-11-56, Subbalakshminagar Income Railway New Colony Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aalcs7973C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

natural justice. 6. The CIT(A) failed in appreciating the fact that the addition made is a disputable addition and such additions cannot be made in the intimation u/s 143(1) and hence the additions are to be deleted as per the provsions of law. 7. For these and such other grounds, that may be adduced at the time

WALTAIR TRADERS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

justice.”\n12. Ground Nos. 1 and 8 are general in nature and needs no specific\nadjudication.\n13. Ground No.2 agitated by the assessee is with respect to the confirming\nthe addition as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act amounting\nto Rs. 41,01,77,981/-. On this issue Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter\n\"Ld.AR\"] submitted that during

SHYAMSUNDAR MAHESWARI SUBHAM MAHESWARI,GUNTUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 180/Viz/2024 (धििाधरणिरध/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shyam Sunder Maheshwari V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) Guntur - 522007 Subham Maheshwari 4-4-141, 7Th Line Chandramouli Nagar Guntur – 522007, Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Avdps7940P] (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) करदाताकाप्त्ि्िध/ Assessee Represented By None : राजसकाप्त्ि्िध/ Department Represented By Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar : सुिवाईसमापहोिेक््त्ि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing 03.09.2024 : घोषणाक्तार्ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2024 : आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061812956 (1) Dated 01.03.2024

68 has no application in this case 4. FOR THAT the Ld. Appellate Authority totally disregarded the material available on record and merely relied upon the investigation report that the assessee is a beneficiary of Rs. 27,00,000/-of accommodation loan. 5. FOR THAT the assessment was framed during the highest Covid-19 wave and when the entire country

VATTIKUTI VEERA VENKATA PRASAD,RAMACHANDRAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

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.280/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Shop-03, Ramachandra Puram Ward-1 Ramachandrapuram Mandal Kakinada East Godavari [Pan : Akqpv2779M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 4 I.T.A. No.280/Viz/2023, A.Y.2015-16 Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad, Ramachandrapuram 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved

MOTHUKURI SRINIVASA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 298/Viz/2024 (निर्धररवरध/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mothukuri Srinivasa Rao V. The Asst. Cit - Circle-2(1) D.No.54-28/1-48, Flat.No.305 C R Building, 1St Floor Annex Ridge Grandeuer Apartment M G Road, Krishna District Road.No.2, Commercial Taxes Colony Andhra Pradesh - 520002 Auto Nagar, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh - 520007 [Pan : Adppm5568D ] (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) करद्त्क्पनतनिनरध/ Assessee Represented By : M.V. Prasad, Ar : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar र्जसक्पनतनिनरध/ Department Represented By सुिव्ईसम्पहोिेकीनतनि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोरर्कीत्रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”]

Section 68 of the Act. 5. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and the furnished documents along with the written submissions on 19.10.2021, 08.02.2024, 14.04.2024 & 07.05.2024. After considering the submissions of the Page No. 3 I.T.A. No. 298/VIZ/2024 Mothukuri Srinivasa Rao assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and sustained the order

COASTAL ENGINEERING & EQUIPEMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 138/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Coastal Engineering & Equipments V. Income Tax Officer – Circle 1(1) (India) Private Limited Income Tax Office 30-1-1/7, Flat No. 201 Pratyakshakar Bhawan Neeladri Complex Mvp Double Road, South Jail Road, Daba Gardens Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530020 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaecc3619C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

68 of the Act and Rs.1,20,000/- as variation in respect of disallowance of ROC expenses. 5. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee even after receipt of the hearing notices on various dates did not file any supporting documents on its contentions as per the grounds of appeal raised