K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

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

condoned the delay.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "153A", "143(3)", "153D", "274", "271(1)(c)", "271AAB", "154", "132", "246A", "139(4)", "5

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the criterion. The criterion for condoning the delay is sufficiency of reason and not the length of the delay. 131. The decisive factor

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the criterion. The criterion for condoning the delay is sufficiency of reason and not the length of the delay. 131. The decisive factor

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. The learned departmental representative vehemently objected to the same and submitted that no sufficient cause is shown and therefore the delay cannot be condoned. 6. We have Carefully considered the rival contention and find that the delay of 39 days in filing appeal by the assessee which is supported by the sufficient reason that the staff deputed

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. The learned departmental representative vehemently objected to the same and submitted that no sufficient cause is shown and therefore the delay cannot be condoned. 6. We have Carefully considered the rival contention and find that the delay of 39 days in filing appeal by the assessee which is supported by the sufficient reason that the staff deputed

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. The learned departmental representative vehemently objected to the same and submitted that no sufficient cause is shown and therefore the delay cannot be condoned. 6. We have Carefully considered the rival contention and find that the delay of 39 days in filing appeal by the assessee which is supported by the sufficient reason that the staff deputed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. The learned departmental representative vehemently objected to the same and submitted that no sufficient cause is shown and therefore the delay cannot be condoned. 6. We have Carefully considered the rival contention and find that the delay of 39 days in filing appeal by the assessee which is supported by the sufficient reason that the staff deputed

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay, it was agreed to declare the purchases made from certain parties as its income. Meanwhile it was in the process of obtaining confirmations from suppliers. It could obtain confirmations from Mr. Abdul Rasheed and Mr. Sayyad Ebrahim. Confirmations received from parties were produced before us. Hence, the income admitted during the search proceedings in respect of said suppliers

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

132, the return of income was filed u/s 139(1)\n\n4.2 Upon careful consideration of the case details and the appellant's\nsubmissions during the assessment proceedings, the AO proceeded to make\nseveral additions to the assessment order. These additions, pertinent to the\nrelevant AYs, were based on various issues that led to the filing of appeals

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

132, the return of income was filed u/s 139(1)\n\n4.2 Upon careful consideration of the case details and the appellant's\nsubmissions during the assessment proceedings, the AO proceeded to make\nseveral additions to the assessment order. These additions, pertinent to the\nrelevant AYs, were based on various issues that led to the filing of appeals

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay for 4 days in both the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.532/Bang/2024 (AY 2015-16): 2. Facts of the issue in this appeal are that the appellant, engaged in real estate project development in Bangalore and affiliated with various grot+ companies and firms, was subject to a search and seizure operation under Section 132

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

132 and therefore assessee must have been aware of the income tax proceedings and filed appeal within time. During the appellate proceedings before the FAA the assessee could not file any cogent material to prove the ill health of the assessee. 6. Considering the rival submissions, we note that the ld. FAA has not condoned the delay of 85 days

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

132, the return of income was filed u/s 139(1)\n\nPage 5 of 18\nITA Nos.1355, 2264/B/2024 etc.\n4.2\nUpon careful consideration of the case details and the appellant's\nsubmissions during the assessment proceedings, the AO proceeded to make\nseveral additions to the assessment order. These additions, pertinent to the\nrelevant AYs, were based on various issues that

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

132, the return of income was filed u/s 139(1)\n4.2\nUpon careful consideration of the case details and the appellant's\nsubmissions during the assessment proceedings, the AO proceeded to make\nseveral additions to the assessment order. These additions, pertinent to the\nrelevant AYs, were based on various issues that led to the filing of appeals by the\nAppellant

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

132, the return of income was filed u/s 139(1)\n\n4.2 Upon careful consideration of the case details and the appellant's\nsubmissions during the assessment proceedings, the AO proceeded to make\nseveral additions to the assessment order. These additions, pertinent to the\nrelevant AYs, were based on various issues that led to the filing of appeals

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VINOD JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

condonation petition for all these assessment years stating that in ITA Nos.636 to 638/Bang/2023 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod Page 4 of 23 all these appeals, ld. CIT(A) has passed the first appellate orders on 23.5.2022. The assessee inadvertently filed the appeals in these assessment years before Panaji Bench on 11.7.2022. Since all these appeals were wrongly filed before

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VINOD JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

condonation petition for all these assessment years stating that in ITA Nos.636 to 638/Bang/2023 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod Page 4 of 23 all these appeals, ld. CIT(A) has passed the first appellate orders on 23.5.2022. The assessee inadvertently filed the appeals in these assessment years before Panaji Bench on 11.7.2022. Since all these appeals were wrongly filed before

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VIJAY JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

condonation petition for all these assessment years stating that in ITA Nos.636 to 638/Bang/2023 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod Page 4 of 23 all these appeals, ld. CIT(A) has passed the first appellate orders on 23.5.2022. The assessee inadvertently filed the appeals in these assessment years before Panaji Bench on 11.7.2022. Since all these appeals were wrongly filed before

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

132(4) or on 25.06.2020 under\nSection 131.\n17.4.\nThe Learned AO was not justified in making the\nad-hoc addition of Rs.23,60,587/-, without any evidence\nand on an erroneous presumption that there was inflation\nof Rs.25 for every lakh beedies sold by the Appellant in the\nimpugned FY 2019-20 merely based on a statement of\nunder