SHOBHA RAMAKRISHNANA NAIR,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shobha Ramakrishnan Nair Karthika Sebipuram Ito Ernakulam Ward-2 Vs. Manjapra So Aluva Kerala 683581 Pan No :Awrpr5406L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 22.12.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059003947(1) For The Ay 2016- 17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, on becoming aware of the assessment, the assessment order was obtained on 04.09.2022. It is not the case that the assessee has not cited any reasonable cause for filing appeal belatedly. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground that the assessee has not shown any sufficient cause has not condoned

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. When the appeal was called nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. 8. The issue in the present appeal relates to levy of penalty u/s

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271 [1] [c] of the Act for AY 2012.13. The Petitioner thereafter accessed the Portal when the presence appellate order u/s 250 of the Act dated 03.08.2023 was noticed. A perusal of the said order indicated that the appeal filed before jurisdictional appellate authority was transferred to National Faceless Appeal Centre and that the National Faceless Appeal

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

penalty u/s. 271(1)© of the Act vide order dated 09.03.2024. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay occurred as the appellant did not receive the order under Section 250 for the A.Y 2014-15 issued on 13.12.2024. Only upon receipt of the penalty show cause notice dated 04.06.2024 issued u/s. 271

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay occurred as the appellant did not receive the order under Section 250 for the A.Y 2014-15 issued on 13.12.2024. Only upon receipt of the penalty show cause notice dated 04.06.2024 issued u/s. 271

RAJASREE MOTORS PVT LTD,COCHIN vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(2), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the relevant year, that the assessee became aware of the passing of the appellate order on 14.12.2022. The assessee’s account at the Income Tax Portal was accordingly immediately accessed and the impugned order downloaded, filing an appeal with dispatch on 20.12.2022. This explains the delay in filing the delay by 11 ½ months

PARAVUR GOVERNMENT SERVANTS COOP BANK LIMITED NO 123,N PARAVUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, ALUVA

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

condone the delay of 138 days in filing the appeal and hear the appeal on merits. Further, we deleted the penalty imposed by the AO u/s.270B of the Act as there was sufficient cause for filing the delayed audit report. Act of Vis Major doesn’t benefit either. The penalty order passed u/s. 271

PARAVUR GOVERNMENT SERVANTS COOP BANK LIMITED NO 123,N PARAVUR vs. ITO WARD 2 ,ALUVA, ALUVA

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

condone the delay of 138 days in filing the appeal and hear the appeal on merits. Further, we deleted the penalty imposed by the AO u/s.270B of the Act as there was sufficient cause for filing the delayed audit report. Act of Vis Major doesn’t benefit either. The penalty order passed u/s. 271

PARAVUR GOVERNMENT SERVANTS COOP BANK LIMITED NO 123,N PARAVUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, ALUVA

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

condone the delay of 138 days in filing the appeal and hear the appeal on merits. Further, we deleted the penalty imposed by the AO u/s.270B of the Act as there was sufficient cause for filing the delayed audit report. Act of Vis Major doesn’t benefit either. The penalty order passed u/s. 271

THE KATTOOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it\nis stated that the delay occurred as the appellant did not receive the\norder under Section 250 for the A.Y 2014-15 issued on 13.12.2024.\nOnly upon receipt of the penalty show cause notice dated 04.06.2024\nissued u/s. 271

KOLLOORVILA SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Q214,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed and later appeal

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(B) of the Income Tax Act 1961 imposing maximum penalty of Rs.150000/-on 02.03.2022. 3 ITA Nos.667 & 879/Coch/2023. Kolloorvila Service Co-op Society Ltd. 5. Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty the assessee preferred appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 02.07.2022. the first Appellate Authority without granting opportunity for personal hearing and does not consider the argument note

KOLLOORVILA SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Q214,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICEER, KOLLAM

Appeal is allowed and later appeal

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(B) of the Income Tax Act 1961 imposing maximum penalty of Rs.150000/-on 02.03.2022. 3 ITA Nos.667 & 879/Coch/2023. Kolloorvila Service Co-op Society Ltd. 5. Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty the assessee preferred appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 02.07.2022. the first Appellate Authority without granting opportunity for personal hearing and does not consider the argument note

KADUNGAMPARAMBIL MANUAL GEORGE JOSEPH,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) penalties for concealment and furnishing of inaccrate particulars of income involving varyig sums in these appeals. Learned DR seeks to submit that AY 2017-18 also involves section 270A penalty of under reporting of incomes as a consequence to misreporting. We are of the considered view that once the lower authorities have estimated the assessee’s book