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.

condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature.” (v) Further, in the case of R. Ramakrishnan Vs. CBDT (2020) (422 ITR 257), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held as under: “14. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not questioned

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.

condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature.” (v) Further, in the case of R. Ramakrishnan Vs. CBDT (2020) (422 ITR 257), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held as under: “14. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not questioned

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.

condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature.” (v) Further, in the case of R. Ramakrishnan Vs. CBDT (2020) (422 ITR 257), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held as under: “14. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not questioned

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature.” 4.9.5 Further, in the case of R. Ramakrishnan Vs. CBDT (2020) (422 ITR 257), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held as under: “14. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not questioned

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature.” 4.9.5 Further, in the case of R. Ramakrishnan Vs. CBDT (2020) (422 ITR 257), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held as under: “14. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not questioned

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature." (v) In the case of R. Ramakrishnan Vs. CBDT (2020) (422 ITR 257), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held as under: “14. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not questioned the validity

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

Section 260A of the Act before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which was on 22.03.2016.” 5. The Ld.AR has filed a fresh affidavit for condonation of delay on 18/11/2018 wherein he has explained the above situation that caused the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. He also prayed for the same to be condoned

M/S SINDHI YOUTH ASSOCIATION,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-17(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

264 days in filing these present appeals before this Tribunal. The reason for the delay in filing the present appeals was due to reason beyond the control of the assessee. He thus prayed for the delay to be condoned. 4.4 The Ld.DR though objected however could not controvert the reasoning given by the Ld.AR for the delay that was caused

M/S SINDHI YOUTH ASSOCIATION,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-17(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

264 days in filing these present appeals before this Tribunal. The reason for the delay in filing the present appeals was due to reason beyond the control of the assessee. He thus prayed for the delay to be condoned. 4.4 The Ld.DR though objected however could not controvert the reasoning given by the Ld.AR for the delay that was caused

SMT. RAVISHANKAR SHYLAJA ,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , DAVANGERE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 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 and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation of time Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was right in condoning the long delay i) of 527 days in filing appeal without appreciating the fact that the order in question had been served on the assessee well within time and the day-to-day reason

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation of time Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was right in condoning the long delay i) of 527 days in filing appeal without appreciating the fact that the order in question had been served on the assessee well within time and the day-to-day reason

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation of time Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was right in condoning the long delay i) of 527 days in filing appeal without appreciating the fact that the order in question had been served on the assessee well within time and the day-to-day reason

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation of time Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was right in condoning the long delay i) of 527 days in filing appeal without appreciating the fact that the order in question had been served on the assessee well within time and the day-to-day reason

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation of time Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was right in condoning the long delay i) of 527 days in filing appeal without appreciating the fact that the order in question had been served on the assessee well within time and the day-to-day reason

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation of time Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was right in condoning the long delay i) of 527 days in filing appeal without appreciating the fact that the order in question had been served on the assessee well within time and the day-to-day reason

MANJUNATH B ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

condone the same, as it is just for one day only. Admittedly, the delay before the CIT(A) is substantial and, therefore, such delay should be justified by the assessee based on cogent reasons. 7.1 Be that as it may be, the assessee admittedly has been non co- operative during the assessment proceedings but the question arises whether

M/S ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S.Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.1054, 3Rd Block, 7Th Main Koramangala, Bengaluru-560034. Pan: Aaci 3805 Q … Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.Chandrashekar, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A) Dismissing The Assessee’S Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Learned Ar Submitted That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Without Providing Adequate Opportunity & Also Narrated Facts In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Prayed That An Opportunity Be Granted To The Assessee To Reiterate The Submissions Made Before Lower Authorities With Page 2 Of 6 Substantive Evidences. Contra, Learned Dr Objected To The Submissions & Prayed That The Delay Is Inordinate & The Cit(A) Was Right In Dismissing The Appeal.

condonation of delay which is as under: “The abovenamed appellant/petitioner most respectfully submits as follows: 1. An order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 27.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle — 3(1)(1), Bengaluru. 2. The Appellant/Petitioner M/s. Ittina Properties Private Limited

M/S BIDAR NIRMITHI KENDRA ,BIDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , BIDAR

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Since all the appeals have common and identical issues, they are clubbed and heard together and consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No.1860/Bang/2018 and the facts narrated therein. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds