PREM PRAKASH GUPTA ,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-6(2)(2), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed as not admitted

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

delay of 375 days. The necessary defect memo stating that appeal is time barred was sent to assessee on 17.6.2025. 3. The assessee filed condonation petition on 30.5.2025 along with Affidavit of assessee. The condonation petition submits as under:- “1. The appellant individual was assessed to income of Rs.37,77,330/- vide order dt:29.12.2019 passed under section

ASST. CIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. M.R. SEETHARAMA (INDL), BANGALORE

In the result, both Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

69A of the Income tax Act are deeming provisions and has to be strictly construed. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in not clearly specifying under which section the addition has been made. The learned Assessing Officer further failed to appreciate that in the scheme of the Act more so in respect of deemed income there is no question

AMRUTUR NINGAIAH GANGADHARAIAH,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Amrutur Ningaiah Gangadharaiah, 151, 6Th Cross, The Income Tax Bapuji Layout, Officer, Attiguppe, Ward – 3(3)(3), Vijayanagar S.O., Bangalore. Bengaluru North, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 040. Pan: Adppg1594H Appellant Respondent

Section 69A of the Act which has no application in the facts and under the circumstances of the case. 5. The appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in presenting his case before the First Appellate authority, as the hearing notices issued by the said authority could not be accessed by your appellant due to the demise of the consultant

SHRI. B.L. NAGENDRA PRASAD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

69A of the Act since the deposits made in the bank accounts are all from explainable and available sources and cannot partake the character of unexplained money, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] was not justified in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in taxing the appellant

SRI SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LIMITED,DAVANAGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANAGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

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

condone the delay of 125 days in filing the appeal and proceed for hearing on merits. 3. The effective issue raised by the assessee is that the revenue authorities erred in holding that the assessee could not transact in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) and further erred in treating the cash deposits made during the demonetization period as unexplained credits

BALAPPA HANAMANTAPPANANDEPPANAVAR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2009-10

condonation of delay at the time of hearing. Therefore the order of the learned CIT – A not admitting the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing of appeal by 208 days is not justified. ii. On the merits of the case it was submitted that the only addition made by the learned assessing officer's is with

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

69A or section 69B or fair market value of any property referred to in Sub-Section (2) of section 56 is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him. Page 10 of 23 Shri M. Nagaraja, Mysore (2) The Valuation Officer to whom

BASAVANNEPPA GULEDAKERI,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HAVERI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 115BBE of the Act even though the said provisions are applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e financial year 2017-18.” 3. At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there is an actual delay of 49 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, however the assessee in his condonation application had inadvertently mentioned the delay

NILESH RATNAKAR DESHPANDE ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing the principles of substantial justice and acknowledging the possibility of counsel's mistake and the impact of the pandemic. The Tribunal restored the entire issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "69A

RAMPUR LAXAMANA NAIK RAVISHANKAR,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , TIPTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar Tulasi Nivasa 8Th Cross, Vidyanagara Tipturho, Tiptur Ito Vs. Tumkur 572 201 Ward 1 Karnataka Tiptur Pan No :Ajvpr7385P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Gokul, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025

69A of the Act and thereby the AO concluded the assessment proceedings ex-parte under section 144 of the Act. 7.1 Thereafter, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act and accordingly the AO passed an order under section 154 on 03.09.2021 by rejecting the request for rectification on the ground that there is no mistake

APPASAB AVADANNA LAVATE ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BIJAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

69A of the Act, taxed @ 60% under the provisions of section 115BBE and assessment order u/s. 144 Page 4 of 10 of the Act was passed determining the total income of assessee at Rs.15 lakhs. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who passed an order on 11.12.2024 wherein the appeal was delayed by 89 days. Assessee

RAMZAN MULLA,VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIJAYAPURA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

Section 44AD. 3.5 Restore principles of natural justice, as the Assessing Officer (AO) disregarded evidence without proper inquiry.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a proprietor of New Charandas Electricals & Engineers and trading in electronic and electrical items. The assessee filed his return of income on 05/08/2017. The assessee also filed his VAT returns

SIDDIQ HUSSAIN DELVI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), BENGALURU

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 Siddiq Hussain Delvi No.127 L. No.1St Floor 6Th Street, Oph Road Shivaji Nagar Vs. Ito Ward 1(2)(2) Bengaluru 560 051 Bengaluru Pan No : Aveps62323P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Phani Kumar, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee has filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 17/01/2017 declaring total income of Rs.11,27,810/-. The Assessee’s case was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny to verify the large cash deposits during the demonetization period. Accordingly

SHRI. RAHUL UDAYASHANKAR ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the failure or delay in issuing the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC) and also submitted that jurisdiction goes to the root of the cause and as such an issue can be raised

MR. MUNIYAPPA RAMACHANDRA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of M/s. Sreenidhi Enterprises. Thus there is no justification in cash deposits advances to the declared income of the assessee. 11. Finally, the Appellant states that the Disallowances and additions made by the Respondent is illogical, and opposed to the facts and which requires to set aside

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name