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.

249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.1 The ld. A.R. submitted a chart showing the particulars of appeals as follows: Assess- Particulars Date of Appeal Before CIT(A) ment passing Years order Due Date Date of Delay in to file filing days appeal appeal Order

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.

249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.1 The ld. A.R. submitted a chart showing the particulars of appeals as follows: Assess- Particulars Date of Appeal Before CIT(A) ment passing Years order Due Date Date of Delay in to file filing days appeal appeal Order

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.

249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.1 The ld. A.R. submitted a chart showing the particulars of appeals as follows: Assess- Particulars Date of Appeal Before CIT(A) ment passing Years order Due Date Date of Delay in to file filing days appeal appeal Order

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

249(3) of\nthe Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case.\n3.1 The ld. A.R. submitted a chart showing the particulars of\nappeals as follows:\nAssess-\nment\nYears\nParticulars\nDate of\npassing\norder\nAppeal Before CIT(A)\nDue Date\nto file\nappeal\nDate of\nfiling\nappeal\nDelay in\ndays\n2013-14\nOrder u/s 147\nr.w.s 144 r.w.s\n144B

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

249(3) of\nthe Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case.\n3.1 The ld. A.R. submitted a chart showing the particulars of\nappeals as follows:\nAssess-\nment\nYears\nParticulars\nDate of\npassing\norder\nAppeal Before CIT(A)\nDue Date\nto file\nappeal\nDate of\nfiling\nappeal\nDelay in\ndays\nOrder u/s 147\n23.03.2022\n22.04.2022\n06.01.2023\n259\n2013

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

4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account

MR. MUPPURI DAMODAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the above observations

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeymuppuri Damodar The Income Tax Officer #26/1, 7Th Main, Sb Colony Ward - 7(2)(5) Bsk Iii Stage, 7Th Block Vs. Bengaluru Bengaluru 560085 Pan – Ahppd9356E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 09.02.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2003-24/1060723928(1) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal As Not- Admitted On The Ground That The Applicable Advance Tax Has Not Been Paid By The Appellant Before The Filing Of The Present Appeal Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Before us the learned A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal of the assessee as per the provisions of s. 249(4) of the Act,. The ld. CIT(A) on the other hand

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

4,05,85,590/- | 1,53,09,694 | 5,58,95,234/- |\n| 2019-20 | 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021 | 1,01,56,742/- | 1,93,23,032 | 2,92,59,772/- |\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have been reproduced in per para

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

4,05,85,590/-\n| 1,53,09,694\n| 5,58,95,234/-\n| 2019-20\n| 143(3) did.\n27.09.2021\n| 1,01,56,742/-\n| 1,93,23,032\n| 2,92,59,772/-\n\n5.0 The appeals for the relevant AYs have been filed with a substantial delay\nand the reasons to condone the delay have

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 of delays in the filing of appeals\nwithin the legal and tax frameworks.\n7.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Postmaster General and\nOthers vs Living Media India Ltd. 5 ITA No. 3555/Del/2009 Asstt. Year: 2002-\n03 and another (2012) 348 ITR 7(SC) and in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil\n(dead

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

section 249(2), the Appellant was required to file appeal for\nthe relevant AYs within 30 days of date of service of the notice of demand.\nHowever, the appellant didn't act promptly.\nNOTARY\n6.\nDirappellant has not been able to prove with facts and evidence that there\nArea: Bengaluru (Ute\nwastoglossinteligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide

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

section 249(2), the Appellant was required to file appeal for\nthe relevant AYs within 30 days of date of service of the notice of demand.\nHowever, the appellant didn't act promptly.\nNOTARY\n6. Dirappellant has not been able to prove with facts and evidence that there\nArea: Bengaluru (Ute\nwastoglossinteligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide

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

section 249(2), the Appellant was required to file appeal for\nthe relevant AYs within 30 days of date of service of the notice of demand.\nHowever, the appellant didn't act promptly.\n• The appellant has not been able to prove with facts and evidence that there\nwas no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide

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

249(3) of the Act. 16.2 We are therefore of the view that the delay deserves to be condoned in the larger interest of justice. Denial of condonation would cause grave prejudice and irreparable loss to the assessee, whereas condoning the delay would not result in any comparable hardship to the Revenue. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing

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 of delay and relying on various judgments, he did not condone the delay in filing appeal and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. Aggrieved from the said order, the assessee

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

4 SCC 66 = AIR 1984 SC 1744 held that if\nrefusal to condone delay results in grave miscarriage of justice,\ndelay must be condoned regardless of its length. This principle\ndirectly applies to cases such as the present one.\n5. Further, in State of Haryana v. Chandramani (1996) 3 SCC 132 =\nAIR 1996 SC 1623, the Supreme Court reviewed several

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

section 249(3) of the Act. The reasons for delay is also not reasonable cause for filing appeal late. Whenever intimation is generated it is ITA Nos.1269 & 1270/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 12 immediately sent to the assessee by email. If the assessee was not satisfied from the processing of return, either he may approach for rectification

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

section 249(3) of the Act. The reasons for delay is also not reasonable cause for filing appeal late. Whenever intimation is generated it is ITA Nos.1269 & 1270/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 12 immediately sent to the assessee by email. If the assessee was not satisfied from the processing of return, either he may approach for rectification