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

Section 271B to warrant the levy of penalty and therefore, the penalty levied requires to be cancelled. Sri Chinnayellappa Chandrashekar, Bangalore Page 2 of 15 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned A.O. is not justified in imposing penalty u/s.271B of the Act, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. He failed to appreciate

SHRIKANT BASAVANNEPPA PATTANSHETTI,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HUBBLAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

271B of IT Act. 3. At the outset, it is submitted that, there is delay of 16 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR furnished affidavit for condonation of delay that reads as under: 1. The impugned appellate order u/s 250 of the Act was passed on 12-03-2024 and this date may be taken

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\nallowed

condone the delay and admit all\nthese appeals for adjudication.\n7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an\nindividual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The\nAO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of\nincome nor furnished the audit report as required under the\nprovisions of the Act within

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

271B , section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271H, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

271B , section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271H, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

271B , section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271H, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

271B , section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271H, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

271B , section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271H, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section

BHADRAIAHKALLENAHALLIDINESHA,MANDYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , MANDYA

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Bhadraiah Kallenahalli Dinesha, Vs. Ito, 12, Kallenahally Village, Ward –1, Thiruganahalli Post, Mandya. Honkere Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk Mandya – 571 432. Pan : Bibpd 0214 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Tharun Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2024

delay condonation Page 2 of 3 application. The learned AR submitted that CIT(A) ought to have issued a defect notice before dismissing the appeal in limine. 3. Assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing the affidavit explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal before the CIT(A), the Order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case

GUNTNUR VINAY ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(5), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

section 234A and 234B of the is bad in law and facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the penalty proceedings-initiated u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAC, 270A(1) r.w.s270A(9)(a), 271A, 271B and 271F of the Act is contrary to law on the facts and circumstances

M/S PANDAVAPURA SAHAKARA SAKKARE KHARKHANE LIMITED ,MANDYA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 271B. It was also submitted that there was a delay of three days in filing the said appeal. ITA No.2325(B)/2018 2 2.1 It is observed that due date for filing of return before Ld.CIT(A), on or before 29/10/16, whereas assessee filed appeal on 03/11/2016 thereby causing a delay of 3 days. 3. It is observed that

SREE RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTION) WARD-3,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Sree Rajendrasuri Gurumandir Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), 25 & 25/1, Jain Temple Road, Ward – 3, Vishwweswarapuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aajts 8921 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ar. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056681273 (1)] Dated 30.09.2023. 2. The Sole & Substantiating Ground Raised By The Assessee To Challenge Order Of Nfac Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.54,700/- Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act, For Delay In Filing The Return Of Income. The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income Was 30.09.2015 But The Assessee Filed Its Return On 31.03.2017. Accordingly, Ao Levied Penalty Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act Of Rs.54,700/-. Page 2 Of 9 3. At The Outset Of Hearing, The Learned Counsel Drew Our Attention That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By 328 Days. However, The Registry Has Not Raised Any Defect Memo For Delay In Filing The Appeal. An Application Dated 22.11.2024 Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Assessee Which Is As Under:

condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal. 5. The learned Counsel submitted that similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.754/Bang/2023 for Assessment Year 2014-15, Order dated 05.12.2023, wherein the assessee had filed the return of income belatedly on 31.12.2017 and the Hon’ble Tribunal haaaaas

SHARADAMBA ENTERPRISES,HUBLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for defective presentation and also for non-prosecution

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

section column, it was mentioned as 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte and confirmed the penalty levied u/s. 271B of the Act. Now the present appeal has been filed by the assessee and in the grounds of appeal, the assessee had raised several grounds as if the penalty has been imposed