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 (3

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 (3

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 (3

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\nof delay as mentioned by the appellant, are merely a bald assertion without any\nbasis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence, and the same would\nnot, as such, constitute \"sufficient cause\" within the meaning of section 249 (3

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

sections": [ "147", "144", "144B", "271(1)(b)", "271(1)(c)", "249(3)", "253(5)" ], "issues": "Whether the assessee had sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing appeals before the NFAC, and if the delay should be condoned

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condonation\nof delay are afterthought and self-serving which shows that appellant has not been\ndiligent in its efforts to file the appeal.\n6.1 As per Section 249(3

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

sections": [ "143(2)", "143(3)", "153C", "127", "139(1)", "249(3)", "249(2)" ], "issues": "The primary issue was whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condonable

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condonation\nof delay are afterthought and self-serving which shows that appellant has not been\ndiligent in its efforts to file the appeal.\n6.1 As per Section 249(3

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condonation\nof delay are afterthought and self-serving which shows that appellant has not been\ndiligent in its efforts to file the appeal.\n\n6.1 As per Section 249(3

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

sections": [ "127", "153C", "143(2)", "143(3)", "139(1)", "139(4)", "249(3)", "249(2)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeals was caused by sufficient reason and whether it should be condoned

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condonation\nof delay are afterthought and self-serving which shows that appellant has not been\ndiligent in its efforts to file the appeal.\n6.1\nAs per Section 249(3

SHRI. G. K RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condonation\nof delay are afterthought and self-serving which shows that appellant has not been\ndiligent in its efforts to file the appeal.\n6.1 As per Section 249(3

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

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

condone delay would amount to\nlegalising injustice on technical grounds—an outcome expressly\ndisapproved by the Supreme Court in Katiji.\n8. In light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court and the bona fide circumstances explained, it is\nhumbly submitted that the delay constitutes “sufficient cause” within\nthe meaning of Section 249(3

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(3

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

condone delay would amount to\nlegalising injustice on technical grounds—an outcome expressly\ndisapproved by the Supreme Court in Katiji.\n8. In light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court and the bona fide circumstances explained, it is\nhumbly submitted that the delay constitutes “sufficient cause” within\nthe meaning of Section 249(3

SHASHIKALAPRAKASH,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

condone delay on “sufficient cause” under section 249(3) of the Act. The law on condonation is well settled and the expression

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

condone delay would amount to\nlegalising injustice on technical grounds—an outcome expressly\ndisapproved by the Supreme Court in Katiji.\n8. In light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court and the bona fide circumstances explained, it is\nhumbly submitted that the delay constitutes “sufficient cause” within\nthe meaning of Section 249(3

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