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

164 taxmann.com 283 (Bang. Trib.). 5. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessment was completed u/s. 153C of the act pursuant to search u/s. 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

VENKATARAMANAPPA SUMA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKABALLAPUR

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

164 days, not 541. The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

section 154 of the Act. 5. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire material available on record and Orders of the authorities below, we notedfrom the affidavit that there is substantial delay to file appeal before the CIT(A). However the learned CIT(A) has appreciated the major delay of 1304 days but has not condoned 164

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

section 154, the action of the AO in rejecting the rectification application was to be upheld. 34. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. As per CBDT Circular No.7/2018, the Commissioner could condone the delay in filing Form 10 electronically with the department. While entertaining such application, the Commissioner is required to satisfy that

M/S. SARVADEIVATHA EDUCATION TRUST(REGD),KODAGU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD, MYSORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2022-23

condone the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) by following the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471. Page 7 of 9 8. On merits, we note that there are ample decisions of this Tribunal, wherein it is observed

KANCHI PERIYAVA TRUST-MYSORE ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

delay in filing this appeal is also condoned. 17. Furthermore, regarding the issue of the non-commencement of activities by the trust, we have restored a similar matter to the ld. PCIT in the assessee’s case in ITA No. 1319, as per paragraph No. 12 of this appeal. Accordingly, we are restoring this matter to the ld. PCIT

KANCHI PERIYAVA TRUST-MYSORE,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BENGALAURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

delay in filing this appeal is also condoned. 17. Furthermore, regarding the issue of the non-commencement of activities by the trust, we have restored a similar matter to the ld. PCIT in the assessee’s case in ITA No. 1319, as per paragraph No. 12 of this appeal. Accordingly, we are restoring this matter to the ld. PCIT

SHRI. SOMASHEKAR VENKATASWAMAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2014-15 Shri Somashekar Venkataswamappa, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Arehalli Village, Uttarahalli Post, Income Tax, Subramanyapura Post, Circle – 3(2)(1), Bangalore-560 061. Bangalore. Pan : Acvpv 7051 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. :

condone the delay of 46 days by the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly admit the assessee’s appeal for consideration and adjudication. O R D E R 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The assessee, an individual in business as a contractor, filed his return for Assessment Year

BASAVARAJ LAXMANAGOUDA BIRADAR,VIJAYAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIJAYAPURA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

condone the delay of 164 days in filing the appeal before us and admit for adjudication. Basavaraj Laxmanagouda Biradar, Vijayapura Page 4 of 10 6. Ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal reads as follows: 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law by confirming the impugned Penalty Order though

MANOJ KUMAR EKAMBARAM ARCOT,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

164 days. Thereafter the assessee had not responded to the various notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal after condoning the said delay in filing the appeal. As against the ex- parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal with the following grounds of appeal

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

SREE VENKATESHWARA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TUMKUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

164 taxmann.com 220 wherein it was held that even in the absence of an express provision, notice and opportunity of hearing must be provided where an order entails adverse civil consequences. . Page 5 of 8 12. Additionally, the ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, especially as the delay was explained by an affidavit

METRIC STREAM INFOTECH INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

164 (Ker) wherein the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the context of condoning the delay in filing the return of income under Section

SHREE RAMA KESHAVDAS PAI ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

condoned and on this basis, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In reply it was submitted by ld. DR of revenue that the date of filing of appeal is 29.07.2013 as noted by CIT(A) on page no. 1 of his order and therefore, there is delay in filing of appeal but he could not point out any defect

SHREE RAMA KESHAVADAS PAI,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumar

condoned and on this basis, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In reply it was submitted by ld. DR of revenue that the date of filing of appeal is 29.07.2013 as noted by CIT(A) on page no. 1 of his order and therefore, there is delay in filing of appeal but he could not point out any defect