GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

SRI. CHINNAYELLAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR, ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Now coming to the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who derives Income from Business and other Sources. For the year under appeal, the assessee had filed his return of income on 30/03/2019 reporting a taxable income of Rs.13,56,930/-. Thereafter, the assessee

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

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.

271(1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………………The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay in presenting the appeal

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.

271(1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………………The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay in presenting the appeal

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.

271(1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………………The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay in presenting the appeal

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.

271(1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………………The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay in presenting the appeal

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, not to levy penalty and the assessing officer ought to have exercised his discretion judiciously and ought not to have imposed penalty in a mechanical manner, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Without prejudice, the authorities below failed to appreciate that the returned income was accepted and there were

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s. 153D of the L.T of the Act dated 30.12.2019 and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 8. It is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is not allowed, the appellant would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s. 153D of the L.T of the Act dated 30.12.2019 and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 8. It is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is not allowed, the appellant would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury

SRI.INDUDHAR,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

condone the delay. 5. Before the Tribunal, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that this is a case of wrong advise and the assessee filed the appeal against the assessment order after the penalty under Section 271(1

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay in filing the appeal after relying on the above judgment. ITA Nos.882-890/Bang/2023 Page 10 of 17 19. Coming to the merit of the case, the sole issue involved in all these appeals are with regard to dismissing the appeal of the assessee by the CIT(A) for challenging the fee imposed u/s 234(E) for delay

SMT. LAKSHMI RAM RAO,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. There is a delay of 61 days in filing these appeals by the assessee. The assessee has filed petition for condonation

SMT B SUMATHY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2005-06 Smt. B. Sumathy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, #T-401, Poorva Park, Ward – 1(2), Now Jeevana Halli Main Road, Ito, Ward – 1[2][2], Cox Town, Bangalore-560 005. Bangalore. Pan : Aseps 7079 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. T. Chandrasekhar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2019

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) in Assessment Year 2005-06. Page 2 of 11 ORDER ON PETITION FOR CONDONAITON OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL 2. At the outset, the learned AR for the assessee submitted there was a delay of 19 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA ,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAA of the Act, of Rs.2,76,354/-, Rs.4,78,950/- and Rs.40,000/- for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 respectively. ITA Nos.785 to 787/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 18 3. At the very outset, we notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAA of the Act, of Rs.2,76,354/-, Rs.4,78,950/- and Rs.40,000/- for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 respectively. ITA Nos.785 to 787/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 18 3. At the very outset, we notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits