THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC as follows: ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 5 of 23 “The appellant is an association registered in the state of Karnataka under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It collects the fees from members and applies

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC as follows: ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 5 of 23 “The appellant is an association registered in the state of Karnataka under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It collects the fees from members and applies

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC as follows: ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 5 of 23 “The appellant is an association registered in the state of Karnataka under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It collects the fees from members and applies

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condonation of delay and therefore was unjustified in rejecting the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was unreasonable and grossly erred by not considering the merits of the case before rejecting the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that intimation under section 143(1) of the Act [rectification order under section 154 of the Act dated

SHRI. MARATE VENKATESHKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(6), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

142), Venkatachaliah, J. (as his Lordship then was), speaking for the Court, has opined thus: "The contours of the area of discretion of the courts in the matter of condonation of delays in filing appeals are set out in a number of pronouncements of this Court. See : Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd.(1962)(2 SCR 762); Shakuntala

SRI. SUHAS SURESH SHET,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

142), Venkatachaliah, J. (as his Lordship then was), speaking for the Court, has opined thus: "The contours of the area of discretion of the courts in the matter of condonation of delays in filing appeals are set out in a number of pronouncements of this Court. See : Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd.(1962)(2 SCR 762); Shakuntala

SRI. SUHAS SURESH SHET,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

142), Venkatachaliah, J. (as his Lordship then was), speaking for the Court, has opined thus: "The contours of the area of discretion of the courts in the matter of condonation of delays in filing appeals are set out in a number of pronouncements of this Court. See : Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd.(1962)(2 SCR 762); Shakuntala

THE KARNATAKA STATE REGN AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not to determine whether the claim is legally or factually strong, but only whether the applicant had a reasonable justification for the delay. 141. Test of "sufficient cause" cannot be substituted by an examination of the merits of the case. Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion based on explanation

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 is not to determine whether the claim is legally or factually strong, but only whether the applicant had a reasonable justification for the delay. 141. Test of "sufficient cause" cannot be substituted by an examination of the merits of the case. Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion based on explanation

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 is not to determine whether the claim is legally or factually strong, but only whether the applicant had a reasonable justification for the delay. 141. Test of "sufficient cause" cannot be substituted by an examination of the merits of the case. Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion based on explanation

D.K. ASHOK,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

142(1) of the Act. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.24.12.2009 accepting the total income of Rs.98,08,540 declared by the assessee in the return of income. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer charged the assessee interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 2.2 The assessee being

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay of 6 days is condoned in both the appeals. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground that reads as under: “a. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. b. The learned assessing officer was not justified in issuing a notice under section

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay of 6 days is condoned in both the appeals. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground that reads as under: “a. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. b. The learned assessing officer was not justified in issuing a notice under section

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

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

142(1) of the Act along with SCN u/s 144 of the Act was issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did not submit any reply and accordingly, the AO drawn an inference that the assessee has nothing to say in this regard and has agreed to the variation proposed in SCN. 7.1 The AO noted that

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

condonation of delay of 2111 days. The entire premise of the assessee is that there is no delay in filing the present appeal as appearing from the following para which forms part of the submission filed by the Ld.AR dated 30/07/2022. “11. However, on account of monetary limits, the Department's appeal stood dismissed vide order dated

M/S SAISRI POWER PROJECTS AND SYSTEMS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2650/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S. Saisri Power Projects & Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Systems Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 6[1][1], No.81, Plot No.5D, Bangalore. Sushobit Residency, 2Nd Block 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwarnagar, Bangalore – 560 079. Pan : Aancs 3278 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Shri. Prashanth G. S, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Inder Solanki, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019 O R D E R

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within certain limit. Length of delay is not the matter; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be un-condonable due to want of an acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases

S B MANGHANANI CHARTIABLE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS,WARD-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

142(1) was issued. The assessee filed their response electronically. The AO proposed to deny the exemption for which the assessee filed their reply and sought for the condonation in filing the form 10B which was also granted by the AO. Thereafter the assessee filed her application before the Ld.CIT(E) for condoning the delay in filing the form

BASAVANNEPPA GULEDAKERI,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HAVERI

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

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

section 115BBE of the Act even though the said provisions are applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e financial year 2017-18.” 3. At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there is an actual delay of 49 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, however the assessee in his condonation application had inadvertently mentioned the delay