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)(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

condonation petition before NFAC explaining the\nreasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC as\nfollows:\n“The appellant is an association registered in the state of Karnataka under\nthe Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It collects the fees from\nmembers and applies the same for the benefit of such members. It also\nreceives voluntary contributions

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

condonation petition before NFAC explaining the\nreasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC as\nfollows:\nPage 5 of 23\nITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024\nThe Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore\n“The appellant is an association registered in the state of Karnataka under\nthe Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It collects the fees from\nmembers and applies

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 68.” 20 of page 24 ITA No.405/Bang/2023 S.P No.29/Bang/2023 N. As regards, without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erred in holding that the appellant has failed to respond to the notice u/s 148 dated 30.06.2021 where the return of income was duly submitted. The delay in filing the return was due to the technical issues

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condonation of delay 4. Notice dated 01.12.2022 07.12.2022 No compliance 2.2 Finally, the ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte by observing as under: “7. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

section 148 of the Act meaning thereby the AO\nhas not treated the return filed as defective and has taken the ROI in cognizance\nwhile passing the reassessment order. Neither the AO has launched prosecution\nu/s 276CC, which empowers an AO to launch prosecution against an assessee\nwho could not file ROI in pursuance to the notice of 148

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

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

SRI. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

section 148 of the Act meaning thereby the AO\nhas not treated the return filed as defective and has taken the ROI in cognizance\nwhile passing the reassessment order. Neither the AO has launched prosecution\nu/s 276CC, which empowers an AO to launch prosecution against an assessee\nwho could not file ROI in pursuance to the notice of 148

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal and thereby ought to have adjudicated the grounds raised by the appellant in the interest of Justice and equity, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Without prejudice, the appellant denies itself liable to be taxed on the income of Rs.1,15,66,754/- as against

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal and thereby ought to have adjudicated the grounds raised by the appellant in the interest of Justice and equity, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Without prejudice, the appellant denies itself liable to be taxed on the income of Rs.1,15,66,754/- as against

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal and thereby ought to have adjudicated the grounds raised by the appellant in the interest of Justice and equity, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Without prejudice, the appellant denies itself liable to be taxed on the income of Rs.1,15,66,754/- as against

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal and thereby ought to have adjudicated the grounds raised by the appellant in the interest of Justice and equity, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Without prejudice, the appellant denies itself liable to be taxed on the income of Rs.1,15,66,754/- as against

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

Section 260A of the Act before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which was on 22.03.2016.” 5. The Ld.AR has filed a fresh affidavit for condonation of delay on 18/11/2018 wherein he has explained the above situation that caused the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. He also prayed for the same to be condoned

E ASHWATH NARAYAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

condonation delay dated 08.07.2024. E. Ashwath Narayan, Bangalore Page 5 of 19 5. However, the learned CIT(A)/NFAC passed the order u/s 250 of the Act dated 02.08.2024 by not allowing the appeal as the assessee had not filed any documents/ explanations/evidences in support of his contentions & therefore the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is of the view that

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we proceed to adjudicate the issues involved in the present appeal instead of remitting the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for consideration. 8. On going through the reassessment order passed by the AO, we take note of the fact that the assessee

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

148 of the Act, be that may be sanction under section 151 of the Act and consequently, subsequent proceedings on an invalid procedure adopted by the learned assessing officer becomes void- ab-inito and does not have any legs to stand the test of law which renders the re-assessment order unsustainable in law, on the facts and circumstances