SAYEGH PAINT FACTORIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. CORPORATE CIR 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

condonation of delay before furnishing a tax audit report under Section 44AB. 8- The delay in filing audit report is legitimate, for reasons beyond the control of the company as the accounts are not adopted and there was a litigation pending with National Company Law Tribunal NCLT. 9-Also, reference is given to section 273B stating that no penalty

PALAKKAL KRISHNANKUTTY RAGHAVAN,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

penalty order in ITA No. 740/Coch/2024 and raised the following grounds: Page 2 of 6 ITA Nos. 740 & 741/Coch/2024 “A. The Appellate Authority went wrong in failing to condone the delay

PALAKKAL KRISHNANKUTTY RAGHAVAN,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

penalty order in ITA No. 740/Coch/2024 and raised the following grounds: Page 2 of 6 ITA Nos. 740 & 741/Coch/2024 “A. The Appellate Authority went wrong in failing to condone the delay

MALLELIL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Attachakkal P.O., Pathanamthitta 689691 [Pan: Aafcm0761Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Surendran, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24.08.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Rock Aggregates & Running A Quarry. The Return Of Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Fled On 22.09.2015 Declaring Income Of Rs. 2,54,10,720/-. Survey

condone the delay of 580 days as the appellant failed to offer any bona fide explanation for the delay. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that we are not convinced that the appellant had explained the entire delay of 580 days in presenting the appeal before this Tribunal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act( herein after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience). SA Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2025 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan 2. Since they are arising from the same order in respect of the same assessee we are deciding these appeals by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act( herein after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience). SA Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2025 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan 2. Since they are arising from the same order in respect of the same assessee we are deciding these appeals by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset

KOOTHERY NARAYANAN VIJAYAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed on the ground of limitation itself

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act( herein after referred to as Act for the sake of convenience). SA Nos. 26 to 28/Coch/2025 Koothery Narayanan Vijayan 2. Since they are arising from the same order in respect of the same assessee we are deciding these appeals by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset

D.C.MILLS (PRIVATE) LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 144/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. We have carefully perused the order passed by the CIT(A). In the grounds of appeal the assessee has taken a specific ground the penalty

SREEPRIYA MOHANAN SAJI,PARAVUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KOLLAM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

penalty notices and asked the assessee to respond to the said notices. At that time only, the assessee came to know that the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte and thereafter steps were taken to challenge the said ex- parte order before this Tribunal. Therefore the delay has been occurred and prayed that the said delay

CHAVAKKAD P C A R D BANK LIMITED,GURUVAYUR vs. ITO, WARD-1 & TPS, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condonation of delay on merits by giving cogent reasons. Accordingly the appeal is remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Chavakkad PCARD Bank Ltd. 7. Since the quantum appeal is remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty

CHAVAKKAD P C A R D BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1 & TPS, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condonation of delay on merits by giving cogent reasons. Accordingly the appeal is remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Chavakkad PCARD Bank Ltd. 7. Since the quantum appeal is remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty

M/S TILECO,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condoning the delay in filing the second appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 2: The Petitioner/Appellant had filed its Rol for AY 2012.13 on 15.05.2013 declaring a Net Income of Rs. 112,750/=: The said Return was taken up for scrutiny and as per orders dated 26.03.2015, the assessing authority completed the assessment where he resorted to disallowance

NAIPPALLI CHIRAYIL CHANDY JOSEPH,ALAPPUZHA vs. ITO WARD 2 , ALAPPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Naippalli Chirayil Chandy Joseph .......... Appellant Naippallichirayil House, Edathua, Alappuzha [Pan: Anspj6746P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K. Balaji, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Income For Ay 2015-16 Was Filed By The Appellant. Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Cash Deposits In Bank Account During The Previous Year Relevant To Ay 2015-16, Ao Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 07.04.2022 After Complying With The Procedures

condone the delay and dismissed in limine on the grounds of delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the CIT(A), grossly erred in dismissing the appeal in limine even though there was sufficient reason for non-filing of the appeal within

KADAVATH AHMED REYAS,KASARAGOD vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KASARGOD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condonation of delay on the ground that the order passed by the CIT(A) was served through ITBA Portal and email id of the Chartered Accountant, which was not in use since 2022. The appellant had come to the knowledge of this order only when the penalty

CHRISTUDANAM YASSAYA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Christudanam Yassaya .......... Appellant Bathel Kp 17A Maruthoor, Vattapara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695028 [Pan: Acmpy4412C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar Thiruvananthapuram 695003

penalty. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. At the outset, I find that there is delay of 9 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant filed an affidavit seeking condonation

MALAPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATION BANK LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, MALAPPURAM

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

penalty proceedings u/s. 270A was received by him. Thereafter the assessee made arrangements for filing the appeal and thus there is a delay of 115 days and prayed to condone

THE VAZHAKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO. 751,VAZHAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Vazhakulam Service Co-Op. .......... Appellant Bank Ltd. No.751, Vazhakulam P O, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam Dist. [Pan: Aacat 2742 H] Vs. Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, Thodupuzha .......... Respondent

condonation of delay on the ground the order passed by the NFAC u/s. 250 of the Act was not served on the assessee. It is only after a show-cause notice for 3 The Vazhakulam Service Co-op. Bank No.751 levy of penalty

JOHN AUGUSTY POOMKUDY,KOCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), KOCHI, KOCHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

penalty of Rs.75 lakhs. Ordered accordingly. 4. Delay of 02 days is condoned by considering the assessee’s condonation petitions