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.

7 SCC 556, wherein held as under: “In the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes

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.

7 SCC 556, wherein held as under: “In the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes

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.

7 SCC 556, wherein held as under: “In the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

7. It is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) takes lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay in filing the present appeal against the order of the learned Assessing Officer under section

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

7 of 14 is absent from sufficient cause. The assessee seeking an unfettered free play in filing the appeal at whatever time it pleases even after substantial delay without sufficient cause. The assessee sought the condonation of delay on fanciful and without any reasonable grounds. We do not wish to promote the notion that this Tribunal is required to condone

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

7 of 16 alone “sufficient cause” the fact is that no cause has been advanced by the assessee for the delay. As there is no explanation for the delay, the appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine, being barred by limitation. In our opinion, it was only negligence on the part of assessee for the above inordinate delay

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

7. It is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) takes lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay in filing the present appeal against the order of the learned Assessing Officer under section

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. For clarity, we reproduce the delay in filing these appeals as below: 7.1 The above table shows the chronological events for delay in filing the appeals before ld. CIT(A). Thus, the contention of the ld. A.R. is that the delay was due to pursuing

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. For clarity, we reproduce the delay in filing these appeals as below: 7.1 The above table shows the chronological events for delay in filing the appeals before ld. CIT(A). Thus, the contention of the ld. A.R. is that the delay was due to pursuing

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. For clarity, we reproduce the delay in filing these appeals as below: 7.1 The above table shows the chronological events for delay in filing the appeals before ld. CIT(A). Thus, the contention of the ld. A.R. is that the delay was due to pursuing

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoned. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. For clarity, we reproduce the delay in filing these appeals as below: 7.1 The above table shows the chronological events for delay in filing the appeals before ld. CIT(A). Thus, the contention of the ld. A.R. is that the delay was due to pursuing

SHRI. MARATE VENKATESHKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(6), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

7 of 13 Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years

SRI. SUHAS SURESH SHET,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

7 -: IT(IT)A Nos.607 & 608/Bang/2021 a) In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others (supra), a two-Judge Bench observed that the legislature has conferred power to condone delay by enacting Section

SRI. SUHAS SURESH SHET,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

7 -: IT(IT)A Nos.607 & 608/Bang/2021 a) In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others (supra), a two-Judge Bench observed that the legislature has conferred power to condone delay by enacting Section

KARLE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

7. The Ld DR on the other hand supported the actions of the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Out of the delay of 229 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), the actual delay to be condoned is 139 days

M/S. VTH SOURCE COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

section 200A(1) was substituted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The assessee contended that AO could levy fee u/s.234E of the Act while processing a return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act only by virtue of the provisions of Sec.200A(1)(c), (d) & (f) of the Act and those provisions came into force only from

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

7 of 18 aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the miscellaneous first appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs." Once the concerned authority applies its mind and declines to condone the delay in filing the appeal for good and appropriate reasons, in that event it cannot

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

7. The Ld CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal on technical grounds, erred in upholding the addition of Rs, 11,73,481/- made by the Ld AO towards disallowance of PF and ESI contribution of employees paid beyond the due date under section 36(1)(va) read with section