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)(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

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. 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. 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

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

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

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. 7. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the appellant has surrendered the PAN, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C

SAROJAMMA,RAMANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAMANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 8 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 8. The interconnected issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal are that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by invoking the provisions of section 249(4

SRI ANNAIAH ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2007-08

delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before CIT(A) should be condoned and I condone the same. Regarding alleged violation of section 249(4

MS.DIVYA S RAO ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

condonation of delay under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in holding that the appeal filed was not maintainable being hit by the provisions of section 249[4

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

249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. b. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the bona fide nature of the delay, which was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant, as detailed in the condonation application filed along with the appeal c. That the Ld. CIT(A) acted contrary to the principles of natural

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 the delay by exercising the powers conferred under section 249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. c. The dismissal of the appeal on delay has resulted in collection of taxes on income which has not been earned by the appellant, thus, defeating the basic tenets of the taxation law, on the facts

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

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

4 SCC 66 = AIR 1984 SC 1744 held that if refusal to condone delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, delay must be condoned regardless of its length. This principle directly applies to cases such as the present one. 5. Further, in State of Haryana v. Chandramani (1996) 3 SCC 132 = AIR 1996 SC 1623, the Supreme Court reviewed several

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

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

4 SCC 66 = AIR 1984 SC 1744 held that if refusal to condone delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, delay must be condoned regardless of its length. This principle directly applies to cases such as the present one. 5. Further, in State of Haryana v. Chandramani (1996) 3 SCC 132 = AIR 1996 SC 1623, the Supreme Court reviewed several

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

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

4 SCC 66 = AIR 1984 SC 1744 held that if refusal to condone delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, delay must be condoned regardless of its length. This principle directly applies to cases such as the present one. 5. Further, in State of Haryana v. Chandramani (1996) 3 SCC 132 = AIR 1996 SC 1623, the Supreme Court reviewed several