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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and hear the same on merits of the matter for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. ITA Nos. 418 to 429/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 30 Assessment Year 2013-14 5. The Appellant wishes to submit that as per the provisions of section 246A

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA ,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 246A of the Act, by filing a condonation petition, narrating the entire facts and circumstances leading for delay in filing

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 246A of the Act, by filing a condonation petition, narrating the entire facts and circumstances leading for delay in filing

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 246A of the Act, by filing a condonation petition, narrating the entire facts and circumstances leading for delay in filing

M/S. MULTI TEK INTERIOR SOLUTIONS ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

delay by way of condonation petition stating as follows: 1. “An order of assessment under section 143 [3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 28/02/2022 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 2[2], Bengaluru. Since the appellant is not sure about the correct date of receipt

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5.2 After adjudication of the appeal for assessment year 2017-18, there was a delay in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A), which is explained by the assessee as follows:- 1. “An order of assessment was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1951 for the Assessment

M/S. VYDEHI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1) , BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5.2 After adjudication of the appeal for assessment year 2017-18, there was a delay in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A), which is explained by the assessee as follows:- 1. “An order of assessment was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1951 for the Assessment

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

section 246A of the Act. 8. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay

CHOURASIAINFRATECH PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

condonation of delay of 448 days in filing the appeal. Page 2 of 7 3. Considered the reason stated by the assessee along with the duly sworn Affidavit, which reads as under:- “The above named Appellant most respectfully submits as follows: 1. The Appellant is an private limited company engaged in the business of construction. The Appellant filed his return

M/S ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S.Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.1054, 3Rd Block, 7Th Main Koramangala, Bengaluru-560034. Pan: Aaci 3805 Q … Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.Chandrashekar, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A) Dismissing The Assessee’S Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Learned Ar Submitted That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Without Providing Adequate Opportunity & Also Narrated Facts In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Prayed That An Opportunity Be Granted To The Assessee To Reiterate The Submissions Made Before Lower Authorities With Page 2 Of 6 Substantive Evidences. Contra, Learned Dr Objected To The Submissions & Prayed That The Delay Is Inordinate & The Cit(A) Was Right In Dismissing The Appeal.

condonation of delay which is as under: “The abovenamed appellant/petitioner most respectfully submits as follows: 1. An order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 27.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle — 3(1)(1), Bengaluru. 2. The Appellant/Petitioner M/s. Ittina Properties Private Limited

M/S. DESAI AND COMPANY ,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahur Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Desai & Company, Vs. Acit, No.1, P.B.Road, Vidyanagar, Circle – 1(1), Hubballi – 560 031. Hubballi. Pan : Aaafd 9759 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. Parthivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2024

condoning the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal under section 246A of the Act. The reason stated by the assessee

SMT. SHILPA GOPALA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

condone the delay of 491 days in filing the appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as per Section 249(3) of the Act without going into the merits of the case of the appellant. 3. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the explanation tendered by the appellant for the delay of 491 days

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

246A of the Act before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]. 10. It is submitted that Petitioner / Appellant including appeal for the impugned assessment year 2019-10 had also filed multiple appeals for various earlier assessment years and also subsequent assessment years which were pending disposal by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]. 11. It is submitted that

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

246A of the Act before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]. 10. It is submitted that Petitioner / Appellant including appeal for the impugned assessment year 2019-10 had also filed multiple appeals for various earlier assessment years and also subsequent assessment years which were pending disposal by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]. 11. It is submitted that

MANOHARS CATERING ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Manohars Catering, Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax & / Or The Partners/ Circle-1, Bangalore Legal Representatives Of (Present Jurisdiction-Income Tax The Partners Of Manohars Officer-Ward7(2)(3), Bangalore) Catering As Stipulated U/S V. 189(1), 189(3) & 189(4) Of The 1961 Act Number 666, Indiranagar 1St Stage Bengaluru-560038 Karnataka Pan:Aalfm1212B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Raghvendra, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2024 O R D E R

condone the delay w.r.t. this appeal and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with law. We Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987 AIR 1353(SC)). 7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) passed an appellate order dated 30.01.2018 under section

ALOK KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

246A of the Act and not for condonation of delay in filing of Form 67. The decision sought by the Appellant from the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) was: • Whether FTC can be denied for delay in filing of Form 67 beyond the due date of filing of Return of Income under Section

LATE H RAJANNA L/R R.MAHESH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2001-02

Section 246A." 5. Hence based on the above, the orders of the authorities below shall be set aside on facts and merits. 6. For the above and other grounds that may be urged and presented at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered.” 3. This appeal

KYALASANAHALLI NARAYANAPPA SUBRAMANI,CNO KOTHANUR POST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1) BENGALURU , KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

delay of 99 days. The ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation and therefore, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before us challenging the said order on the following grounds: 1. The impugned order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances

TIRUMALARAO P MOKASHI,BIJAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELGAUM

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

246A of the Act to adjudicate the consequential order giving effect to the order of ld. CIT and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against which the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal with delay of 1872 days. 3. The ld. Authorised Representative(AR) submitted that the ld. Counsel for the assessee advised that the order