THE KARNATAKA STATE REGN AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

unexplained delay of\neven a few days may reveal inaction or deliberate disregard of\nstatutory timelines, and therefore disentitle the party to\nindulgence.\n130. The quantum of delay has no direct nexus in law with\nsufficiency of the cause. The law are independent and diverse\nfactors. Hence the extent of delay should not determine whether\nthe cause is sufficient

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

investment of Rs. 3,84,000/- remains unexplained and accordingly added to the total income as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 7.3 Thus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs.29,92,592/- u/s 147/144 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal

ALOK ANAND,LONDON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained investments made in the mutual funds of Rs. 1,41,60,440/- and granted relief of Rs. 99,45,440/-. The Ld.CIT(A) had also computed the net profit from share trading and bank interest and added the said amount of Rs1,42,852/ as income from Business and Profession. The Ld.CIT(A) further directed

ALOK ANAND,LONDON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained investments made in the mutual funds of Rs. 1,41,60,440/- and granted relief of Rs. 99,45,440/-. The Ld.CIT(A) had also computed the net profit from share trading and bank interest and added the said amount of Rs1,42,852/ as income from Business and Profession. The Ld.CIT(A) further directed

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

investment in construction was challenged and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to set aside the issue for reconsideration vide judgment dated 13.08.2012. A copy of the judgment of the High Court is enclosed at Page Nos.75-80 of the Paper Book. Consequently, when effect was given to the order of the Tribunal under Section

ACHAKALIRA MONAPPA UTHAIAH , KODAGU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

condonation of delay filed before the learned CIT[A] under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant denies himself liable to penalty imposed u/s 271AAC[1] of the Act of Rs. 3;09,852/- being 10% of the tax payable u/s 115BBE

ACHAKALIRA MONAPPA UTHAIAH ,KODAGU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

condonation of delay filed before the learned CIT[A] under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant denies himself liable to penalty imposed u/s 271AAC[1] of the Act of Rs. 3;09,852/- being 10% of the tax payable u/s 115BBE

SRI MURALI L,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 14(7), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. Two issues are raised in this appeal – (i) addition in respect of unexplained investment

M/S INTERNET COMPONET MANAGEMENT GROUP PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Internet Component Management Group Pvt. Ltd., No.66/1, Magadi Main Road, Rananathapura, Kamakshipalya, Opp. To Safal Daily Fresh, Bangalore-560079 ….Appellant Pan Aaaci 7483C Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent.

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in software consultancy and corporate training and filed the Return of Income on 14.10.2010 with loss of Rs.5,40,052 and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and Notice under Section

IRENE PEREIRA ,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and assessed on a total income of Rs.73,64,000/- under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 01.03.2024, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC. 5. The learned CIT(A)/NFAC, during

SMT. ANASUYA BASI REDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

condone the delay of 5 days and proceeded to dispose of the same on merits. 3. Three additions are challenged in this appeal, viz., (i) unexplained investment

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay and admit the appeals. AY 2001-02 4. The facts are that consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] on 24.8.2006 at the residential premises of the assessee, notice u/s. 153A was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.4

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay and admit the appeals. AY 2001-02 4. The facts are that consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] on 24.8.2006 at the residential premises of the assessee, notice u/s. 153A was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.4

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay and admit the appeals. AY 2001-02 4. The facts are that consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] on 24.8.2006 at the residential premises of the assessee, notice u/s. 153A was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.4

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condone the delay and admit the appeals. AY 2001-02 4. The facts are that consequent to search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] on 24.8.2006 at the residential premises of the assessee, notice u/s. 153A was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.4

MALAYA RADHA KRISHNA AKASHDEEP ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKABALLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

unexplained investment on account of cash deposited to assessee’s bank account. Against this assessee carried appeal before NFAC belatedly by 55 days. The Malaya Radha Krishna Akashdeep, Chikaballapur Dist. Page 3 of 5 assessee has filed an affidavit before NFAC mentioning the reasons for delay as follows: 1. “I am not a Income Tax assessee and non filer

SHREE HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LIMITED,CHIKODI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

investments appearing in the balance sheet and other issues. 4. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) where the AO after verifying the various details submitted by the asse concluded the assessment by making a disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80P. The PCIT on verification of assessment records noticed that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs.1

GUNDARLAHALLY RAMESH MEERA ,CHALLAKERE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHALLAKERE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Ms. Gundarlahally Ramesh Meera, Vs. Ito, #01, Pavagada Road, Ward – 1, Challakere – 577 522. Chitradurga. Pan : Afhpm 7158 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2024

condone the delay in filing the appeal especially without issuance of any notice for hearing of Page 2 of 5 the appeal and rejecting the reasons explained for the delay in filing on slender and unsustainable grounds without appreciating that the cause of substantive justice must be preferred over technical considerations under the facts and in the circumstances