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

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

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

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

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

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][b

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)(b

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

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

b. The learned Addl.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that there existed `sufficient cause' for delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority and the learned Addl.CIT(A) ought to have 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

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

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

b. The learned Addl. CIT(A), has failed to appreciate that the reasons furnished for delay in filing the appeal constitutes 'reasonable cause' and ought to have 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

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

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

249(3) of the Income Tax Act and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant has acted with reasonable diligence and good faith. Therefore, a liberal and justice-oriented approach mandates that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.” 11. Considering the above submissions wherein the assessee has explained

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

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

249(3) of the Income Tax Act and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant has acted with reasonable diligence and good faith. Therefore, a liberal and justice-oriented approach mandates that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.” 11. Considering the above submissions wherein the assessee has explained

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

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

249(3) of the Income Tax Act and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant has acted with reasonable diligence and good faith. Therefore, a liberal and justice-oriented approach mandates that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.” 11. Considering the above submissions wherein the assessee has explained

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

b) 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 06.10.2023 351 Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 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