CHITTIBABU GHANTA,GOA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 Tribunal, whereas the appellant assessee in all the documents claimed to have instituted these appeals with a delay of 920 days (approx.) from the expiry of period of limitation in terms of pre-amended provision of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. 7. In terms

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,PANAJI, GOA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 Tribunal, whereas the appellant assessee in all the documents claimed to have instituted these appeals with a delay of 920 days (approx.) from the expiry of period of limitation in terms of pre-amended provision of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. 7. In terms

CHITTIBABU GHANTA,GOA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA

Appeals are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

6 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 Tribunal, whereas the appellant assessee in all the documents claimed to have instituted these appeals with a delay of 920 days (approx.) from the expiry of period of limitation in terms of pre-amended provision of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. 7. In terms

THE GOKAK TALUKA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCED CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LTD,GOKAK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BELGAUM

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 274/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Gokak Taluka Agricultural Produced Co-Op. Marketing Society Ltd. Apmc Yard, Gokak, Dist. Belgaum Pan : Aaajt1462H . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr S Gadadi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04/03/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065710654(1) Dt. 18/06/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 22/09/2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

delay of 72 days in instituting present appeal, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), in the larger interest of judice deem it fit to condone the same and proceed to adjudicate

SHRI LEO DINIZ,BORDA, FATORDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, PANAJI

The appeal is DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2016-17 Leo Deniz Row House No. 6 J P Andrade Residency, Borda Fatorda, Goa-403602 Pan: Amgpd8687A . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 02/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging Order Dt.

6 of 34 Leo Deniz Vs DCIT ITA No. 150/PAN/2024 AY: 2016-17 true sense, not the number but text of explanation is determinative in the matter of condonation of delay and it is worthy to note the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide para 15 summarized the same in ‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

250 of the Act, the merged/amalgamated assessee bank [‘appellant’] came in present bunch of appeals with a delay of 803 days (as endorsed by registry) from the expiry of time limit within which these appeals u/s 253(1) were required to be filed. 5. At the outset of hearing, candidly accepting that the said delay is inordinate

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

250 of the Act, the merged/amalgamated assessee bank [‘appellant’] came in present bunch of appeals with a delay of 803 days (as endorsed by registry) from the expiry of time limit within which these appeals u/s 253(1) were required to be filed. 5. At the outset of hearing, candidly accepting that the said delay is inordinate

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

250 of the Act, the merged/amalgamated assessee bank [‘appellant’] came in present bunch of appeals with a delay of 803 days (as endorsed by registry) from the expiry of time limit within which these appeals u/s 253(1) were required to be filed. 5. At the outset of hearing, candidly accepting that the said delay is inordinate

JAP RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED,ANJUNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

250 of the Act involving three ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 22 JAP Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 005 to 007/PAN/2024 assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 [‘AYs’] which in turn respectively emanated out of separate orders passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3)/143(3) of the Act. 2. The case was called twice; none appeared

JAP RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED,ANJUNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

250 of the Act involving three ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 22 JAP Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 005 to 007/PAN/2024 assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 [‘AYs’] which in turn respectively emanated out of separate orders passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3)/143(3) of the Act. 2. The case was called twice; none appeared

JAP RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED,ANJUNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

250 of the Act involving three ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 22 JAP Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 005 to 007/PAN/2024 assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 [‘AYs’] which in turn respectively emanated out of separate orders passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3)/143(3) of the Act. 2. The case was called twice; none appeared

DINKAR KASHIMATH PATIL,MARCELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-W-1(3),PANAJI, PANAJI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.10/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Dinkar Kashimath Patil, Vs National Faceless H.No.322/3,Ganpatiwada, Assessment Centre, . Near Graceland,Khandola, Delhi. Marcela, Ponda-403107, . Goa. Pan/Gir No. Ajjpp9976E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

250 of the Act. The assesse has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of short term capital gains and not condoning the delay in filling the appeal before the CIT(A). 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing

JAGANUR VIVIDODDHESH PRATHAMIK GRAMEEN KRUSHI SAHAKAR SANGH NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NIPPANI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. No.454/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2017-18 ) Jaganur Vividoddhesh I.T.O-Ward-1, Vs Prathamik Grameen Krushi Nemchand Building, . Sahakar Sangh Niyamit, 747,Ashoknagar, Jaganur, Tq.Chikkodi, Nipani-591237, Dist Belgaum-591305, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan No: Aabap7922L

250 of the Act. The assesse has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filling the appeal before the CIT(A) and sustaining the denial of claim of deduction u/sec 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

delay of 5 to 6 years which prevented it from filing the present appeal within the statutory time limit allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act. In the event the lifeline embedded in s/s (3) of section 249 of the Act could not rescue the appellant from rejection of petition for condonation and dismissal of first appeal u/s 250

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

delay of 5 to 6 years which prevented it from filing the present appeal within the statutory time limit allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act. In the event the lifeline embedded in s/s (3) of section 249 of the Act could not rescue the appellant from rejection of petition for condonation and dismissal of first appeal u/s 250

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

delay of 5 to 6 years which prevented it from filing the present appeal within the statutory time limit allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act. In the event the lifeline embedded in s/s (3) of section 249 of the Act could not rescue the appellant from rejection of petition for condonation and dismissal of first appeal u/s 250

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

delay of 5 to 6 years which prevented it from filing the present appeal within the statutory time limit allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act. In the event the lifeline embedded in s/s (3) of section 249 of the Act could not rescue the appellant from rejection of petition for condonation and dismissal of first appeal u/s 250

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

delay of 5 to 6 years which prevented it from filing the present appeal within the statutory time limit allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act. In the event the lifeline embedded in s/s (3) of section 249 of the Act could not rescue the appellant from rejection of petition for condonation and dismissal of first appeal u/s 250

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

delay of 5 to 6 years which prevented it from filing the present appeal within the statutory time limit allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act. In the event the lifeline embedded in s/s (3) of section 249 of the Act could not rescue the appellant from rejection of petition for condonation and dismissal of first appeal u/s 250