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

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

139(4) filed on\n31.03.2019. The assessment was thus completed u/s. 143(3)\nr.w.s. 153D of the act.\n3.3 Against the additions made in the above referred assessment\norders, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with\ndelay as under:\nAY\nDate of\norder passed\nby AO\nDate of\nservice as\nper Form 35\nDate of\nfiling\nWhether appeal

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

section in respect of furnishing of return of income. The assessee in the present case has filed a belated return u/s 139 (4) of the Act, which the department has also not held it to be a defective return u/s 139(9) of the Act. 9.6 Further, with regard to delay in filing the form 10B for the years prior

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

4 of 19 same time, it is equally clear that the phrase is not a charter for indolence or a device to revive stale claims that the law of limitation otherwise extinguishes. 124. The burden to establish sufficient cause lies upon the party seeking condonation, and the court must be satisfied that the cause is real, bona fide, and free

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

4 of 19 same time, it is equally clear that the phrase is not a charter for indolence or a device to revive stale claims that the law of limitation otherwise extinguishes. 124. The burden to establish sufficient cause lies upon the party seeking condonation, and the court must be satisfied that the cause is real, bona fide, and free

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

4 SCC 378, has held that ignorance of law is not an\nexcuse for not taking appropriate steps within limitation.\n\n7.4 In the case of Shirpur Gold Refinery Ltd vs. ITAT, the Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh Court while dismissing the appeal because of delay held that:\n"We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal was passed

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

4), Bangalore, notices u/s.153C for the AYs 2013-14 to\n2018-19 were issued to the appellant. In response to these notices, the appellant\nfiled returns of income in response as detailed below:\nNOTARY\nGOVT.\nIncome offered in return u/s.153C for AYs 2013-14\nand u/s.139(1)- for AYs 2019-20\nDate of filing of return in\nresponse to notices

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

sections": [ "127", "153C", "143(2)", "143(3)", "139(1)", "139(4)", "249(3)", "249(2)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeals was caused by sufficient reason and whether it should be condoned

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

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

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

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

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

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

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

condone the delay. 7. The brief facts of the case show that the Shri Mahabir Prasad Kansaria expired on 02/9/2020. He was carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of TMT bars in the name and style of BSNL Ispat, filed his return of income on 13/03/2019 showing the business income of ₹ 4,120,060/–. ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page

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)

139(5). (Ground 11.1 for AY2020-21 and similar\nground in Ground 9.2 for AY 2019-20)\ne) The Learned AO has no jurisdiction to accept the belated return filed\non 09.02.2021 in response to notice under Section 153A as\nprovisions of Section 153A do provide any authority to the Learned\nAO to condone any delay. (Ground

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

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account

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

4 SCC 378, has held that ignorance of law is not an\nexcuse for not taking appropriate steps within limitation.\n7.4 In the case of Shirpur Gold Refinery Ltd vs. ITAT, the Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh Court while dismissing the appeal because of delay held that:\n\"We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal was passed

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

139(1) on 04.04.2014 declaring gross total income of Rs.8,83,217. A search was conducted on 09.05.2018 in the Page 2 of 7 case of T. Suresh, Bangalore in connection with search proceedings in the group case of T. Suresh and Others. Notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued on 31.08.2021 and assessee filed return of income

SRI PRAJA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.1, 3Rd Main Road, Nagappa Block, Ward – 2(2)(1), Sriramapura, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 021. Pan : Aaajs 1557 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Bharath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024

139(1) of the Act. In Page 4 of 7 view of the provisions of section 80AC of the Act, (which was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2018), assessee cannot be allowed deduction under section 80P of the Act. However, assessee has filed application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay

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

139(1)\nDate\n1\n2013-14\n1,52,62,981/-\n24.07.2013\n2\n2014-15\n25,51,053/-\n01.10.2014\n3\n2015-16\n21,90,102/-\n21.09.2015\n4\n2016-17\n2,45,96,491/-\n27.06.2016\n5\n2017-18\n1,36,44,128/-\n05.08.2017\n6\n2018-19\n4,08,02,040/--139(4)\n18.03.2019\n7\n2019-20\n1,01,56,742/-\n16.08.2019\n4.1

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

4. In any case, the authorities below have erred in not appreciating the fact that as the appellant is liable for audit under the provisions of Income tax Act, the applicable due date for filing the return of income is as per the explanation 2 to Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 2 of 14 section 139