ABDUL HAKEEM,GULBARGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, , GULBARGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Before us, both the parties fairly conceded that the order of AO as well as ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte. Further, we also take a note of the fact that the total cash deposits made during the financial year 2016-17 in the bank account with the ICICI bank

RAMPUR LAXAMANA NAIK RAVISHANKAR,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , TIPTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar Tulasi Nivasa 8Th Cross, Vidyanagara Tipturho, Tiptur Ito Vs. Tumkur 572 201 Ward 1 Karnataka Tiptur Pan No :Ajvpr7385P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Gokul, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025

condone the delay of 142 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 7. Now brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an employee of North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation at Maski, Raichur Division in Karnataka State & working as Depot Manger did not filed his return of income for the assessment year

JAMBALLI SHIVAPPA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay occurred in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. Sri Jamballi Shivappa, Shivamogga Page 9 of 12 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a senior citizen full time agriculturist and as per the information available, the assessee had deposited substantial cash in the bank account during

SIDDIQ HUSSAIN DELVI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Siddiq Hussain Delvi No.127 L. No.1St Floor 6Th Street, Oph Road Shivaji Nagar Vs. Ito Ward 1(2)(2) Bengaluru 560 051 Bengaluru Pan No : Aveps62323P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Phani Kumar, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee has filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 17/01/2017 declaring total income of Rs.11,27,810/-. The Assessee’s case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny to verify the large cash deposits during the demonetization

SHRIKANT BASAVANNEPPA PATTANSHETTI,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HUBBLAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Page 6 of 7 5. It was submitted by the assessee that, he accepted the illegal tender of old notes during the demonetization

SHIVANNA NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the\nassessee stands allowed for statistical purpose with a cost of Rs

condone the delay in filing the present appeal before\nthis Tribunal.\n8. On merits of the case, it is noted that the addition made by the Ld.AO is\nin respect of cash deposited during the demonetization

VANIGOTA SUGAR TRADING COMPANY ,VIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , BIJAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Now the brief facts of the case are that the ld. PCIT on examination of records noted that the assessee firm had deposited cash in SBNs of Rs.45,00,000/- during the demonetization

APPASAB AVADANNA LAVATE ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BIJAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization and not explained the source of cash deposit, without providing the opportunity to the Appellant. 3. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant has filed return of income declaring the income and paid the taxes, without giving an opportunity to explain the addition cannot be made. The Appellant would have explained the source of income

SHREE HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LIMITED,CHIKODI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

condonation of delay stating that:- Page 4 of 19 i. The order of assessment was selected for revision and submissions were made and an order under section 263 came to be passed on 30.03.2022 by the PCIT, Huballi holding that the order passed under section 143(3) of the act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue insofar

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ,TURUVEKERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , TIPTUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is a Primary Agriculture Credit Co-Operative Society registered under The Karnataka State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959. The assessee filed the Return of Income for AY 2017-2018 on 30/03/2018 vide e- filing declaring total

DEVENDRAGOUDA CHANNAVIRAGOUDA HIREGOUDRA,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, HAVERI, DAVANGERE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. 13. On merits of the case, it is noted that the addition made by the Ld.AO is in respect of cash deposited during the Page 9 of 11 demonetization

DAREKOPPA KRISHNAIAHSHETTY KESHA vs. HETTY,BANGALOREVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. DarekoppaKrishnaiahshettyKeshavshetty, Bangalore Page 9 of 12 4. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an individual derived income from salary, house property, business income from catering & financial services and income from other sources. For the Asst. year 2017-18 under appeal, the assessee had filed

MALAYA RADHA KRISHNA AKASHDEEP ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKABALLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

condoning the delay of 55 days even after considering the merit of the case in detail and also considered the additional evidences in the form of Affidavit in the appeal order. 6. For these and other reasons which may be adduced at the time of hearing, Your Honour is requested to delete the addition made

VANAJAKSHI CHIKKAPPAIAH,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(7), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Chartered Accountant employed in BEL, Bangalore. The only source of income is from salary. For the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee has e-filed her return of income in form ITR-1 SAHAJ

TIRUMAIAH SUNIL,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay in filing of appeal and admit the same. 5. Merits of the case show that assessee is an individual, who did not file his return of income. But information was received that there was a cash deposit of Rs.13,23,500 in his bank account during the demonetisation period. Therefore notice

SHABINA IBRAHIM PINTO,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Facts of the issue are that in this case assessment order was framed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) making addition of Rs.18 lakhs towards cash deposit to SCDCC Bank Ltd., Karkala Branch during demonetization

MUNIYAPPA NAGARAJ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD-4(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay of 577 days and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits. 6. The issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT-A erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merit of the case and confirming the order of the AO. 7. The facts in brief are that the assessee, an individual

THE VISHWAS CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

condoned the said delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. 4. The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The assessee filed their return of income on 24/01/2018 and claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act. Thereafter the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS