VANGAPANDU PREM KUMAR,,KAKINADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , KAKINADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.269/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-2015) Vangapandu Prem Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.42-3-1 Ward-I, Kakinada Sri Venkateswara Garments Tilak Street, Main Road Kakinada [Pan : Abxpv9304L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt U.Mini Chandran, Sr.Ar 23.09.2020 सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

1(2), Thane (2016) 73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: - I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case the addition has been made by the income tax authorities by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of sect/on 68

T SRINIVASA RAO&CO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

EASTERN WAREHOUSE CORPORATION,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

SRI RANGA MOTORS,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

TETALI ANIL KUMAR,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.175/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Eastern Warehouse Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aaafe3741J] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Ranga Motors Vs Income Tax Officer Vizianagaram Ward-1 [Pan : Aabbfs8249P] Vizianagaram आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Tetali Anil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-3(3) [Pan : Aaqpt9453L] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.184/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) T.Srinivasa Rao & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward-1(1) [Pan : Aamft1310Q] Visakhapatnam

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,CHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

1) of the Act before the Income\nTax Settlement Commission, Chennai which was rejected by the Income Tax\nSettlement Commission U/s. 245D(2C) of the Act vide order dated\n21/07/2016. The assessee subsequently filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana against the order of the Income\nTax Settlement Commission. The Hon'ble High

GHANTA PUNNA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), , GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal and cross objection filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.179/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Ghanta Punna Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Income Tax 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.354/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Ghanta Punna Rao Income Tax 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Circle-2(1) 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.124/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.354/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-2012) Ghanta Punna Rao Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Varandas Apartments Income Tax 1/3, Navabharat Nagar Circle-2(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adupg3613J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

1(2), Thane (2016) 73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: - I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case the addition has been made by the income tax authorities by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of sect/on 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. VENKATRAMA POULTRIES PVT. LTD, GUNTUR

1.\nThe order of the Ld.ClT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law.\n2.\nThe L.d. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the working of average price\nper egg at Rs 3.83, as done by the AO in the assessment order. The CIT(A)\nerred in directing the AO to recompute the average price

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

1) of the Act before the Income\nTax Settlement Commission, Chennai which was rejected by the Income Tax\nSettlement Commission U/s. 245D(2C) of the Act vide order dated\n21/07/2016. The assessee subsequently filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana against the order of the Income\nTax Settlement Commission. The Hon'ble High

ASHA SANGHAVI,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt.Asha Sanghavi Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.7-22-12 Ward-2 Nandepu Heights Rajamahendravaram T.Nagar Rajamahendravaram [Pan : Awfps2816R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.Manoj Kumar, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

1(2), Thane (2016) 73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: - I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case the addition has been made by the income tax authorities by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of sect/on 68

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following

POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid.” 21. Respectfully following