DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

271(1)(c) as order passed has been barred by limitation u/s 275. The assessee during the appellate proceedings submitted that Proviso (b) of Sec.275 (1A) and sec.275(1)(a) prohibit passing an order imposing the penalty after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the order of the ITAT is received

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

Section 275(1)(c) reads as under: “275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed… (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from

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

Section 275(1)(c) reads as under: “275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed… (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from

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

271(1)(c)) and under-reporting of income (u/s 270A). The penalty orders were passed after the stipulated time limit under Section 275

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

Section 275(1)(c) reads as under:\n“275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be\npassed...\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the\nproceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been\ninitiated, are completed, or six months from

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

Section 275(1)(c) reads as under:\n“275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be\npassed...\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the\nproceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been\ninitiated, are completed, or six months from

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 143(3) dated 26/03/2013, was itself filed with a delay of 125 days. This fact is not mentioned in the affidavit, even though it was stated in para 5 that the Income Tax Practitioner ("HP"), Shri Sudhindra appeared on behalf of the appellant during the assessment proceedings before the AO. In addition, the fact that same ITP also appeared

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 143(3) dated 26/03/2013, was itself filed with a delay of 125 days. This fact is not mentioned in the affidavit, even though it was stated in para 5 that the Income Tax Practitioner ("HP"), Shri Sudhindra appeared on behalf of the appellant during the assessment proceedings before the AO. In addition, the fact that same ITP also appeared

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA ,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 143(3) dated 26/03/2013, was itself filed with a delay of 125 days. This fact is not mentioned in the affidavit, even though it was stated in para 5 that the Income Tax Practitioner ("HP"), Shri Sudhindra appeared on behalf of the appellant during the assessment proceedings before the AO. In addition, the fact that same ITP also appeared

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

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

SHRI. ASLAM PASHA,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKABALLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15

271 (1) ( C) needs to be deleted. 5. The defective notice did not indicated whether it was issued to the assessee for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing officer failed to specifying the default in his notice. 6. Usually Department uses Printed Penally Notices, but in the assessee's case the penalty notice

JAYAPPA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU - 1 , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Jayappa Reddy No.1, Cholanayakanahalli R.T. Nagar Vs. Pcit Bangalore 560 032 Bengaluru-1 Bengaluru Pan No : Agapj9691E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Prathik, A.R. Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024

penalty under section 271-F of the Act. 7. The ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue relied upon the judgment of CIT Vs. Surendra Prasad Aggrawal reported in 275 ITR 113 (All.) and contended that in that case also the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has affirmed the jurisdiction u/s

SRI. PADMANABHA MANGALORE CHOWTA,MANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271-D of the Act-and the National Faceless Assessment Center has not established that the appellant committed any such default actionable u/s.271D of the Act, deliberately and consequently, the impugned penalty order passed for the venial and assumed technical breach deserves to be cancelled having regard to the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

DUSTVEN PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2013-14

275/-. The return was accepted in the assessment completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. The AO issued notice under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 for concealment of income. The assessee explained that it suffered huge financial losses because of cancellation of coal block allocations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Orders placed on the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s