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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A assessments. 13. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business

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

153A", "Section 143(2)", "Section 245C(1)", "Section 245D(2C)", "Section 132(4)", "Section 132(4A)", "Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872", "Section 69 of the Act", "Section 68

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR vs. SILEMANKHAN & MAHABOOBKHAN, GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.571/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Silemankhan & Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.149/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.571/Viz/2019) (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) M/S Silemankhan & Vs. Deputy.Commissioner Of Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

153A(1)(b) . Accordingly, assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act by making addition of ₹ 6,86,400/- as unexplained investment in pawn broking business. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ITAT, where the order passed by the Assessing Officer has been confirmed

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ANUMOLU TIRUPATI RAYUDU(HUF),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. In response the assessee, in addition to detailed submissions has also submitted the confirmation letters from the respective creditors. Not satisfied / convinced with the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 2 Crs treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and also disallowed

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. In response the assessee, in addition to detailed submissions has also submitted the confirmation letters from the respective creditors. Not satisfied / convinced with the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 2 Crs treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and also disallowed

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ATR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. In response the assessee, in addition to detailed submissions has also submitted the confirmation letters from the respective creditors. Not satisfied / convinced with the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 2 Crs treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and also disallowed

LALITHA DEVI,,KAKINADA vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

1. A. Narendra ` 17000 2. Ch. Hanumantha Rao ` 15000 3. G. Mani ` 17000 4. K. Ramachandra Rao ` 16000 5. S. Subba Rao ` 17000 6. P. Chandra Sekhar ` 16000 ` 15000 7. P. Gayatrinath 8. M. Rama Krishna ` 17000 9. K. Dora Babu ` 16000 10. N. Venkateswara Rao ` 15000 Since the assessee could not furnish any explanation with regard to the source

LALITHA DEVI,,KAKINADA vs. THE ACIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

1. A. Narendra ` 17000 2. Ch. Hanumantha Rao ` 15000 3. G. Mani ` 17000 4. K. Ramachandra Rao ` 16000 5. S. Subba Rao ` 17000 6. P. Chandra Sekhar ` 16000 ` 15000 7. P. Gayatrinath 8. M. Rama Krishna ` 17000 9. K. Dora Babu ` 16000 10. N. Venkateswara Rao ` 15000 Since the assessee could not furnish any explanation with regard to the source

BHAVANASI YELLA RAO vs. THE ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.265, 266, 267 & 268/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Years: (2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Bhavanasi Yella Rao Acit, Central Circle Guntur Vijayawada [Pan No.Acjpb0307J] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Central Circle Bhavanasi Yella Rao Vijayawada Guntur (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Debakumar Sonowal, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2018

153A(1) of the Act. The decision of the ITAT Kolkata Bench rendered in the case of Shri Bishwanath Garodia (supra) on identical facts of the case as that of the Assessee in the present case, clearly supports our conclusions as above. 26. In the light of the discussion above, our conclusion is that in the present case, the issue

BHAVANASI YELLA RAO vs. THE ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.265, 266, 267 & 268/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Years: (2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Bhavanasi Yella Rao Acit, Central Circle Guntur Vijayawada [Pan No.Acjpb0307J] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.351/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Central Circle Bhavanasi Yella Rao Vijayawada Guntur (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ar प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Debakumar Sonowal, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2018

153A(1) of the Act. The decision of the ITAT Kolkata Bench rendered in the case of Shri Bishwanath Garodia (supra) on identical facts of the case as that of the Assessee in the present case, clearly supports our conclusions as above. 26. In the light of the discussion above, our conclusion is that in the present case, the issue