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 of delay as mentioned by the appellant, are merely a bald assertion without any basis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence, and the same would not, as such, constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249

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 of delay as mentioned by the appellant, are merely a bald assertion without any basis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence, and the same would not, as such, constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249

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 of delay as mentioned by the appellant, are merely a bald assertion without any basis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence, and the same would not, as such, constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249

SRI. SURESHA CHIKKAJALA RAMAKRISHNAPPA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

section 249 and it is delayed by 265 days and after considering the submissions of the assessee which are reproduced in his order regarding condonation

SRI. GOVINDACHARY vs. D.C.I.T,

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

249 of Income Tax Act. This act of the appellant is not a bonafide one and the delay in such circumstances cannot be considered to be one in good faith. This inordinate delay in filing the appeal by 439 days and under such circumstances of the case, is not condoned as not being a bonafide delay in filing the said

THE PAVAGADA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMTIED,KOLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOLAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

condoned the delay by exercising power conferred under section 249(3) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI. BALAJI VIVIDODEESHAGALA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

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

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

condoning delay, provided there is no mala fide intention. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee deliberately delayed the filing. On the contrary, the explanation is supported by surrounding circumstances, including disruption due to the pandemic and negligence of the tax consultant, which constitute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 249

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoned the delay is correct view. The assessee should have filed appeal within due date as per section 249(3) of the Act. The reasons

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoned the delay is correct view. The assessee should have filed appeal within due date as per section 249(3) of the Act. The reasons

SALIGRAMA RAJENDRA PRASAD RASHMI,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating the reasonable cause for the delay, as provided under Section 249

MAROOFALI I SHAIKH ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The order passed by the authorities below insofar as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice and probabilities on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case

YASHODA PUTTARAJU JAYANTHKUMAR ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) , MYSORE

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown under section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act for the appellants failure to file the appeal within prescribed period of limitation u/s 249(2) of the Act r.w.s 5 of the Limitation Act. Since, the delay

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

condonation of delay as mentioned by the appellant, are merely a bald assertion without any basis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence, and the same would not, as such, constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249

WELCOME TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

condoning the delay which were not accepted by the CIT(Appeals) observing that the appeal of the assessee is not filed as per section 249

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condone delay would amount to legalising injustice on technical grounds—an outcome expressly disapproved by the Supreme Court in Katiji. 8. In light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the bona fide circumstances explained, it is humbly submitted that the delay constitutes “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 249

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condone delay would amount to legalising injustice on technical grounds—an outcome expressly disapproved by the Supreme Court in Katiji. 8. In light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the bona fide circumstances explained, it is humbly submitted that the delay constitutes “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 249

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

condone delay would amount to legalising injustice on technical grounds—an outcome expressly disapproved by the Supreme Court in Katiji. 8. In light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the bona fide circumstances explained, it is humbly submitted that the delay constitutes “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 249

BALAPPA HANAMANTAPPANANDEPPANAVAR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2009-10

condoned the delay by exercising the powers conferred under section 249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances

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