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.

Section 253(3) of I.T. Act, leading us unhesitatingly to reject assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal within time prescribed U/s 253(3) of I.T. Act. 6.8 Further, at this stage, it is pertinent to mention the various precedents as follows: (i) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal

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.

Section 253(3) of I.T. Act, leading us unhesitatingly to reject assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal within time prescribed U/s 253(3) of I.T. Act. 6.8 Further, at this stage, it is pertinent to mention the various precedents as follows: (i) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal

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.

Section 253(3) of I.T. Act, leading us unhesitatingly to reject assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal within time prescribed U/s 253(3) of I.T. Act. 6.8 Further, at this stage, it is pertinent to mention the various precedents as follows: (i) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal

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

2 of 19 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the affidavit as well as the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee. In fact, the delay caused in filing of these appeals is 247 days. 7. Provision stipulates that where an appeal is not filed within the prescribed period of limitation, the same

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

2 of 19 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the affidavit as well as the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee. In fact, the delay caused in filing of these appeals is 247 days. 7. Provision stipulates that where an appeal is not filed within the prescribed period of limitation, the same

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

17 days in filing of appeal and directed ITAT to decide\nthe matter on merits of the case. The rationale followed was that\nnon-consideration of jurisdictional High Court judgement has\ncaused substantial injustice and the same needs to be corrected.\nRelevant extract of the order is reproduced below:\n\n“9.........Though under the provisions of Section

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section\n253(3) of I.T. Act, leading us unhesitatingly to reject assessee's\nrequest for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal within time\nprescribed U/s 253(3) of I.T. Act.\nPage 11 of 18\n2.12 At this stage, it is pertinent to mention the various precedents\nas follows:\n(i)\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case

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

Section\n253(3) of I.T. Act, leading us unhesitatingly to reject assessee's\nrequest for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal within time\nprescribed U/s 253(3) of I.T. Act.\n6.8 Further, at this stage, it is pertinent to mention the various\nprecedents as follows:\n(i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

condonation petition for delay in filing the application for registration u/s. 12A [for the AYs under dispute] has not yet been decided by the CBDT and, therefore, the total incomes of the assessee were to be assessed as per commercial principles. The CIT(A) was also not justified in taking a similar stand that of the AO, without taking cognizance

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

Section\n253(3) of I.T. Act, leading us unhesitatingly to reject assessee's\nrequest for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal within time\nprescribed U/s 253(3) of I.T. Act.\n6.8 Further, at this stage, it is pertinent to mention the various\nprecedents as follows:\n(i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

17 of 79 for condonation of delay may be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In this case, the Revenue has not filed any counter- affidavit opposing the application of the assessee, therefore, as held by the Apex Court, there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court observed that when the delay was of short duration

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)

iv) of Explanation 2 to section 148 apply except with the prior\napproval” It may be noted that though several assessment years\nmay be involved, the Parliament has not used the word ‘each\n assessment year' as used in Section 153D.\n4. 4. Hence, the Learned AO cannot pass the assessment orders for the AYs\n2017

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

iv) of Explanation 2 to section 148 apply except with the prior\napproval” It may be noted that though several assessment years\nmay be involved, the Parliament has not used the word ‘each\n assessment year' as used in Section 153D.\n4.4. Hence, the Learned AO cannot pass the assessment orders for the AYs\n2017

JURIMATRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.92/Bang/2025\N Assessment Years:2018-19\Njurimatrix Services India Pvt. Ltd.\Ng4, Aspen Building\Nmanyata Embassy Business Park\Nhebbal\Nbangalore 560045\Npan No: Aabcj6157D\Nappellant\Nacit\Nvs. Circle 4(3)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By : Sri K.R. Girish, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing : 21.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025\Norder\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 30.03.2023 Vide Din & Order No.\Nitba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051648832(1) Passed U/S 263 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment\Nyear 2018-19.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\Ngeneral Grounds Of Appeal\N1.

iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented\napproach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used\nto defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;\n(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause\nhad

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

KARLE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

17. In case the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalise an illegal and unconstitutional order. The power given to the Tribunal is not to legalise an injustice on technical ground but to do substantial justice by removing the injustice. The Parliament conferred power on this Tribunal with the intention that this Tribunal would deliver justice rather than

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay in filing the appeal after relying on the above judgment. ITA Nos.882-890/Bang/2023 Page 10 of 17 19. Coming to the merit of the case, the sole issue involved in all these appeals are with regard to dismissing the appeal of the assessee by the CIT(A) for challenging the fee imposed u/s 234(E) for delay

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

iv) of Explanation 2 to section 148 apply except with the prior\napproval” It may be noted that though several assessment years\nmay be involved, the Parliament has not used the word ‘each\n assessment year' as used in Section 153D.\n\n4. 4. Hence, the Learned AO cannot pass the assessment orders for the AYs\n2017

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

iv)\nPAGE 85-90 OF CONSOLIDATION OF 4 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 20.10.2023 - Email dated 20.07.2023 from ADIT(ITBA) 0/0 CIT(ITBA), Directorate of Income Tax (Systems) sending proof of Case History Noting of ITBA giving proof of DRP order received by NFAC on 01.02.2022 (row No. 94).\n(v)\nPAGE 4 OF CONSOLIDATION OF 4 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS - FILED