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.

b) Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders. The assessee was under a bonafide belief

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.

b) Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders. The assessee was under a bonafide belief

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.

b) Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders. The assessee was under a bonafide belief

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

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

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

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

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)(b

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

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

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

B)\nOriginal delay\nin filing of\nappeal\nFrom 30.05.2022 to\ntill date of filing of\nappeal\nTotal delay after\nexclusion of period as\nper SC order\n2013-14\n27-10-2021\n25-01-2023\n455\n215\n240\n2014-15 27-10-2021\n26-01-2023\n456\n215\n241\n2015-16\n22-10-2021\n29-01-2023\n464\n220\n244\n2016

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

B)\nOriginal delay\nin filing of\nappeal\nFrom 30.05.2022 to\ntill date of filing of\nappeal\nTotal delay after\nexclusion of period as\nper SC order\n2013-14\n27-10-2021\n25-01-2023\n455\n215\n240\n2014-15 27-10-2021\n26-01-2023\n456\n215\n241\n2015-16\n22-10-2021\n29-01-2023\n464\n220\n244\n2016

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

B)\nOriginal delay\nin filing of\nappeal\nFrom 30.05.2022 to\ntill date of filing of\nappeal\nTotal delay after\nexclusion of period as\nper SC order\n2013-14\n27-10-2021\n25-01-2023\n455\n215\n240\n2014-15 27-10-2021\n26-01-2023\n456\n215\n241\n2015-16\n22-10-2021\n29-01-2023\n464\n220\n244\n2016

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

B)\nOriginal delay\nin filing of\nappeal\nFrom 30.05.2022 to\ntill date of filing of\nappeal\nTotal delay after\nexclusion of period as\nper SC order\n2013-14\n27-10-2021\n25-01-2023\n455\n215\n240\n2014-15\n27-10-2021\n26-01-2023\n456\n215\n241\n2015-16\n22-10-2021\n29-01-2023\n464\n220\n244\n2016

APMC TARIKERE,TARIKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHICKMAGALUR

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

delay in filing form no.10 nor condonation letter by the ld. CIT(Exemption). Since form no.10 was not filed along with return within the due date specified under the Act, the AO held that assessee trust is not eligible to claim accumulation u/s 11(2) of the Act. 3.1 Further, on verification of the statement filed by the assessee

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

B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2013-14 Sri Suresha Chikkajala Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Ramakrishnappa, of Income Tax, 81, Stone Building, Central Circle 2(4), Chikkajala Post, Chikkajala, Bangalore. Bangalore – 562 157. PAN : BADPS 0728K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Shri

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

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

249/- under Section 14A in the original and\nbelated returns, they blindly taxed the non-existent income\nreflected in the revised returns filed for the AYs 2019-20\nand 2020-21 and the belated return filed for AY 2019-20.\n8.7.\nWithout prejudice, the Lower Authorities have\nfailed to appreciate that as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the\naverage