DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

269T otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that section, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit or specified advance so repaid. 7. In the case of the Assessee in the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2009- 10 to 2011-12, the AO noticed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

269T otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that section, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit or specified advance so repaid. 7. In the case of the Assessee in the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2009- 10 to 2011-12, the AO noticed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI CGANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

269T otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that section, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit or specified advance so repaid. 7. In the case of the Assessee in the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2009- 10 to 2011-12, the AO noticed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

269T otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that section, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit or specified advance so repaid. 7. In the case of the Assessee in the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2009- 10 to 2011-12, the AO noticed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

269T otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that section, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit or specified advance so repaid. 7. In the case of the Assessee in the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2009- 10 to 2011-12, the AO noticed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

269T otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that section, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit or specified advance so repaid. 7. In the case of the Assessee in the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2009- 10 to 2011-12, the AO noticed

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (“the Joint CIT”).Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. 3. A perusal of the order dated March

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (“the Joint CIT”).Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. 3. A perusal of the order dated March

M/S SHA THANMAL SUKHARAJJI & CO,RANEBENNURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBLI

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

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

penalty u/s. 271C of the Act being invalid because it was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. However an application to raise the aforesaid ground on limitation was filed by way of additional ground on the ground that the said ground was inadvertently omitted to be taken in the original grounds

M/S SHA THANMAL SUKHARAJJI & CO,RANEBENNUR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBBALI

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

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

penalty u/s. 271C of the Act being invalid because it was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. However an application to raise the aforesaid ground on limitation was filed by way of additional ground on the ground that the said ground was inadvertently omitted to be taken in the original grounds

M/S SHA THANMAL SUKHARAJJI & CO,RANEBENNURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , RANEBENNURU

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

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

penalty u/s. 271C of the Act being invalid because it was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. However an application to raise the aforesaid ground on limitation was filed by way of additional ground on the ground that the said ground was inadvertently omitted to be taken in the original grounds

KANAKARA RAJENDRA PRASAD REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2013-14

269T otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that section, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the loan. In the order of assessment passed by the AO dated 24.3.2016, the AO i.e., the Asst. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Circle-3(2)(1), Bangalore, has observed as follows:- “Penalty

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

u/s 270A). The penalty orders were passed after the stipulated time limit under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, as the action for imposition of penalty was initiated

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income &\n27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the\nprovisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above.\"\n12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that where\nthe AO has initiated the penalty proceedings in his/her assessment order, the said\ndate

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income &\n27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the\nprovisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above.\"\nThe predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that where\nthe AO has initiated the penalty proceedings in his/her assessment order, the said\ndate

SREE RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

u/s 272A(2)(e) of the Act is not within reasonable time. 3.4 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. in ITA No.780 of 2015 vide judgement dated 13.10.2015, held as under: “8. We are unable to agree with the above submission of learned Standing counsel for the Revenue. Section

M/S PRADHAN PERFUMERS,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10

u/s 271-E of the Act and consequently, the impugned order passed deserves to be cancelled. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause and that there was no animus to defy the statutory provisions of the Act and therefore, he ought not to have confirmed

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:

u/s 272A(2)(e) of the Act is not within reasonable time. 3.4 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. in ITA No.780 of 2015 vide judgement dated 13.10.2015, held as under: Page 6 of 9 “8. We are unable to agree with the above submission of learned Standing counsel