DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MANGALDEEP CHAINS, BENGALURU

69B\nof the Act\" and to tax at special rates given in section\n115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.”\n2.\nAt the outset of hearing, we noted that appeal filed for the A.Y. 2017-\n18 was delayed by 24 days. The Ld.DR explained the reason for the delay in\nfiling the appeal stating that the concerned officer was busy

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. MANGALDEEP CHAINS, BENGALURU

69B\nof the Act\" and to tax at special rates given in section\n115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.”\n2.\nAt the outset of hearing, we noted that appeal filed for the A.Y. 2017-\n18 was delayed by 24 days. The Ld.DR explained the reason for the delay in\nfiling the appeal stating that the concerned officer was busy

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VIJAY JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

section in the final computation as 69B instead of mentioning of correct provisions of the Act and the assessment order has been passed in all these assessment years under ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. Against this assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed all the additions made by ld. AO after giving opportunity

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VINOD JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

section in the final computation as 69B instead of mentioning of correct provisions of the Act and the assessment order has been passed in all these assessment years under ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. Against this assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed all the additions made by ld. AO after giving opportunity

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VINOD JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

section in the final computation as 69B instead of mentioning of correct provisions of the Act and the assessment order has been passed in all these assessment years under ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. Against this assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed all the additions made by ld. AO after giving opportunity

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

condoning the delay in filing these appeals and proceeded to decide the appeals on merits. 3. The following grounds are raised by the assessee. “1. The impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act dated, 31-12-2018 is opposed to the facts of the case and the law and therefore, the same is liable

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

condoning the delay in filing these appeals and proceeded to decide the appeals on merits. 3. The following grounds are raised by the assessee. “1. The impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act dated, 31-12-2018 is opposed to the facts of the case and the law and therefore, the same is liable

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay in furnishing the details. The partners of the assessee firm are spread across many parts of South India. As a result of the short notice, the assessee firm could not produce the partners before the learned officer as time barring assessment was involved. 6.4 She submitted that the ld. AO was wrong in making the addition

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay in furnishing the details. The partners of the assessee firm are spread across many parts of South India. As a result of the short notice, the assessee firm could not produce the partners before the learned officer as time barring assessment was involved. 6.4 She submitted that the ld. AO was wrong in making the addition