CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.

Irene Pereira, Udupi vs. ITO Ward- 1&Tps, Udupi

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

…ITA No. 2273/Bang/2024 Irene Pereira, Udupi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Irene Pereira Martis Mansion, TG Road, Behind Indian Overseas Bank, Shirva, B.O., ITO, Ward–1 & TPS Vs. Udupi – 574116, Udupi, Karnataka - 576101 Karnataka PAN NO : AYKPP0381K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri. Ravindra Poojary, Advocate Respondent by : Sri. V. Parithivel, JCIT Date of Hearing : 31.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This…

Sri Ayyappaswamy Sannidhanachari Table Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

…ITA No.1898/Bang/2024 Sri Ayyappaswamy Sannidhana Charitable Trust, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: NA Sri Ayyappaswamy Sannidhana Charitable Trust Ayyappa Swamy Temple Near Raithara Santhe CIT(Exemptions) Yelahanka Old Town & ITO Ward-6(1)(1) Vs. Yelahanka Satellite Town Bangalore Bangalore 560 040 Karnataka PAN NO : ABATS7065G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date of…

Muniyappa Srinivasa Gowda, Bangarpet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

…rdize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of the appeal. 13. I place reliance on the following case law and beg your honor to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 14. Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. It is settled position of law that where the delay was bonafide and there is…

Sivarama Krishnaiah Gumpena, Bengaluru vs. ITO-W-5(3)(2), Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

…ther there is a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal on time by the assessee and in our view when there is a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic 7 approach and the Court should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression “sufficient cause” the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importan…

Narayanappa Govindaraju, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle (1)(3) Bangalore, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

…ves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision of Honble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai [1987] 30 Taxman 133/[1985] 153 ITR 596, considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Honble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to…

Prathap Seetharama Reddy, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalaore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

…s a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 93 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or e…

Sekaripuram Devaraj Gopalakrishnan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and SP is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sekaripuram Devaraj Gopalakrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 19-8 Swaraj, Dinnur Main Road, Ward -6(3)(1), R. T. Nagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 032. Pan : Aarpg 2781 P Appellant Respondent Sp No.58/Bang/2024 (In Ita No1816/Bang/2024) Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sekaripuram Devaraj Gopalakrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bangalore – 560 032. Ward -6(3)(3), Pan : Aarpg 2781 P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. C. J. Yeswanthram, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 22.07.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2020-21. Sp No.58/Bang/2024 (In Ita No1816/Bang/2024) Page 2 Of 8

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sekaripuram Devaraj Gopalakrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 19-8 Swaraj, Dinnur Main Road, Ward -6(3)(1), R. T. Nagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 032. PAN : AARPG 2781 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT SP No.58/Bang/2024 (in ITA No1816/Bang/2024) Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sekaripuram Devaraj Gopalakrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bangalore – 560 032. Ward -6(3)(3), PAN : AARPG 2781 P Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : S…

Arya Vysya Sangha, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hubli

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

…y therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision o: Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CH vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon'ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to…

Arya Vysya Sangha, Chitradurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hubli

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

…y therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision o: Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CH vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon'ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to…

Welcome Traders, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

…y therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision o: Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CH vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon'ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to…

B M Manjunatha Gupta, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Shivamogga

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

…hen the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Furthermore, the Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion in the case of People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO (100 ITD 87) (Chennai) (TM) condon…

Apollo Education Trust, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ITA Nos.1212 to 1215/Bang/2024 Apollo Education Trust, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1212 to 1215/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2017-18 Apollo Education Trust 320, 5th Block, 5th Cross BSK 3rd Stage ACIT Bangalore Vs. Central Circle-1(4) Karnataka 560 085 Bangalore PAN NO : AAATA8436A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Narendra Sharma, A.R. Respondent by : Sri V. Parithivel, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2024 O R D E R…

Apollo Education Trust, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ITA Nos.1212 to 1215/Bang/2024 Apollo Education Trust, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1212 to 1215/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2017-18 Apollo Education Trust 320, 5th Block, 5th Cross BSK 3rd Stage ACIT Bangalore Vs. Central Circle-1(4) Karnataka 560 085 Bangalore PAN NO : AAATA8436A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Narendra Sharma, A.R. Respondent by : Sri V. Parithivel, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2024 O R D E R…

Apollo Education Trust, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ITA Nos.1212 to 1215/Bang/2024 Apollo Education Trust, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1212 to 1215/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2017-18 Apollo Education Trust 320, 5th Block, 5th Cross BSK 3rd Stage ACIT Bangalore Vs. Central Circle-1(4) Karnataka 560 085 Bangalore PAN NO : AAATA8436A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Narendra Sharma, A.R. Respondent by : Sri V. Parithivel, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2024 O R D E R…

Apollo Education Trust, Bangalore vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ITA Nos.1212 to 1215/Bang/2024 Apollo Education Trust, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1212 to 1215/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2017-18 Apollo Education Trust 320, 5th Block, 5th Cross BSK 3rd Stage ACIT Bangalore Vs. Central Circle-1(4) Karnataka 560 085 Bangalore PAN NO : AAATA8436A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Narendra Sharma, A.R. Respondent by : Sri V. Parithivel, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2024 O R D E R…

Sri. Suresha Chikkajala Ramakrishnappa, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

…y therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision o: Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CH vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon'ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to Page 10 of 12 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot b…

Srinivasan Narayanan, Hosur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

…therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon’ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to…

Srinivasan Narayanan, Hosur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

…therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon’ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to…

Srinivasan Narayanan, Hosur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

…therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon’ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to…