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

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section

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

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us :

69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished 10 Sathi Mangayamma under section 139; or (b) determined by the assessing officer includes any income referred to in section 68

SRILAKSHMI DEVIREDDY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(5), VIJAYAWADA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Srilakshmi Devireddy Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5) D.No. 9-58, Loyabata Road Nunna, Vijayawada – 521212 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bjupd8440D] Vijayawada करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Per Ravish Sood, Jm: आदेश /Order The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 12.11.2024, 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 03.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D was enhanced from

THE ACIT,, GUNTUR vs. SAI BHASKAR IRONS LIMITED,, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.108/Viz/2016 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year:2012-13) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Sai Bhaskar Circle-2(1), Guntur Irons Limited 3-1-3/A, 3Rd Lane Rajendra Nagar Guntur [Pan :Aamcs1675G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Deba K.Sonowala, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri I Kama Sastry, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2018

sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C of the Act in view of the scheme of those provisions.” 3.1. The Ld.CIT(A) also relied on the decision of Guru Prasad Vs.CIT [158 ITR 278] (Pat) and argued that the additions made u/s 68

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

68 of the Act. 12 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened assessment only

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

68 of the Act. 12 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened assessment only

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

68 of the Act. 12 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened assessment only

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

68 of the Act. 12 5. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) have not considered the fact that the reopening of the assessment is without recording reasons. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) would have observed that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law as the Assessing Officer reopened assessment only

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

68,495/- as additional income. The Ld. AO did not accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

68,495/- as additional income. The Ld. AO did not accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

68,495/- as additional income. The Ld. AO did not accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

68,495/- as additional income. The Ld. AO did not accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

68,495/- as additional income. The Ld. AO did not accept these submissions of the assessee and concluded that the excess stock is taxable U/s. 69B of the Act and deficit stock as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and hence, added an amount of Rs. 2,11,55,707/- being the difference between the excess stock and deficit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MANCHUKONDAS SHAYAM ZAVERI, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.629/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Manchukondas Income Tax Shyam Zaveri Central Circle-1 D.No.10-1-27, Visakhapatnam Opp:Vemana Mandir Gold Plaza, Sampath Vinayak Temple Road Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abafm3933F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.26/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.629/Viz/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S Manchukondas Shyam Zaveri Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.10-1-27, Income Tax Opp:Vemana Mandir Central Circle-1 Gold Plaza, Sampath Vinayak Temple Visakhapatnam Road, Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abafm3933F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Smt Suman Malik, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019

section manager. Both of them were not available at the time of survey. In the statement recorded on 03.12.2015, his father had explained the difference in silver and sought time for reconciling the differences in gold ornaments, gold bars. On 13.01.2016, within two months time, the assessee had reconciled the stock position and placed before the AO with relevant