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

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

condone delay on bedrock of principle that adjudication of lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system; (g) The increasing tendency to perceive the delay as a non- serious matter and hence lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, with legal parameters. (Emphasis supplied) ITAT-Panaji Page 28 of 32 Chittibabu

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

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

condone delay on bedrock of principle that adjudication of lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system; (g) The increasing tendency to perceive the delay as a non- serious matter and hence lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, with legal parameters. (Emphasis supplied) ITAT-Panaji Page 28 of 32 Chittibabu

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

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

condone delay on bedrock of principle that adjudication of lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system; (g) The increasing tendency to perceive the delay as a non- serious matter and hence lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, with legal parameters. (Emphasis supplied) ITAT-Panaji Page 28 of 32 Chittibabu

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.

delay is condoned and the appellant is heard on merits of the case. 26. We note that, as a last resort, the Ld. AR tried hard to showcase the present email-id was different than that was in use but failed to inspire because the same was found updated on 20/05/2024 that is much after the culmination of impugned proceedings

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

delay of 802/803 days beyond the applicable statutory time period, hence barred by limitation as prescribed by s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. The admission of these appeals in terms of s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act, are therefore subject to condition that, the appellant for a ‘reason/cause’ was prevented from instituting the present appeals within

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

delay of 802/803 days beyond the applicable statutory time period, hence barred by limitation as prescribed by s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. The admission of these appeals in terms of s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act, are therefore subject to condition that, the appellant for a ‘reason/cause’ was prevented from instituting the present appeals within

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

delay of 802/803 days beyond the applicable statutory time period, hence barred by limitation as prescribed by s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. The admission of these appeals in terms of s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act, are therefore subject to condition that, the appellant for a ‘reason/cause’ was prevented from instituting the present appeals within

M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED,MUDHOL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 123/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

condone the delay of 30 days in filing of these appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and admit this appeals for hearing on merits. 5 I.T.A. No. 123/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02 I.T.A. No. 124/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2002-03 I.T.A. No. 125/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2003-04 I.T.A. No. 126/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s. Nirani Sugars Ltd. 11. On merits

M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED,MUDHOL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 123/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

condone the delay of 30 days in filing of these appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and admit this appeals for hearing on merits. 5 I.T.A. No. 123/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02 I.T.A. No. 124/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2002-03 I.T.A. No. 125/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2003-04 I.T.A. No. 126/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s. Nirani Sugars Ltd. 11. On merits

M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED,MUDHOL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 123/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

condone the delay of 30 days in filing of these appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and admit this appeals for hearing on merits. 5 I.T.A. No. 123/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02 I.T.A. No. 124/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2002-03 I.T.A. No. 125/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2003-04 I.T.A. No. 126/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s. Nirani Sugars Ltd. 11. On merits

M/S NIRANI SUGARS LIMITED,MUDHOL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 123/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02

condone the delay of 30 days in filing of these appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and admit this appeals for hearing on merits. 5 I.T.A. No. 123/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2001-02 I.T.A. No. 124/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2002-03 I.T.A. No. 125/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2003-04 I.T.A. No. 126/PAN/2018 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s. Nirani Sugars Ltd. 11. On merits

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

section 253 of the Act is subject to establishing satisfactorily ‘sufficient cause’ behind such occurrence of delay on record in first place. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 32 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Vs JCIT/ACIT ITA Nos.034 & 035/PAN/2025 AY: 2011-12 & 2014-15 9. Ex-parte; Secondly, we also note that, against assessment order dt. 14/03/2014

DAMODAR MANGALJI & COMPANY LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

Appeals stands DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

section 253 of the Act is subject to establishing satisfactorily ‘sufficient cause’ behind such occurrence of delay on record in first place. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 32 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Vs JCIT/ACIT ITA Nos.034 & 035/PAN/2025 AY: 2011-12 & 2014-15 9. Ex-parte; Secondly, we also note that, against assessment order dt. 14/03/2014

OJAS SHASHIKANT KULKARNI,MARGAO vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 050/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Ojas Shashikant Kulkarni A-3/A-4, C.D. Neighbourhood, Swami Chinmayanand Marg, Gogoi, Salcete, Margao, Goa Pan : Dkzpk5732F . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Director Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D.E. Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 19/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; Assessee’S Captioned Appeal Impugns Din & Order 1072026383(1) Dt. 09/01/2025 Passed By Addl//Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-2, Jaipur [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Intimation Dt. 26/11/2021 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Asstt. Direction Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’].

condonation of delay and in consequence dismissed the appeal in limine as barred by limitation. Faced with the situation, the assessee came in present appeal alleging violation of natural justice. 4. The order of intimation passed on 26/11/2021 was received by the appellant on 30/11/2021 and thus was under obligation to file an appeal within 30 days therefrom in terms

THE KARNATAKA MULTIPURPOSE SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,CHIKODI vs. E ASSESSMENT, NIPNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 122/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Karnataka Multipurpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit. Bhagyalaxmi Nagar, Chikodi, Belgavi-591201. Pan : Aaaat4824A . . . . . . . Appellant V/S National Faceless E-Asstt Centre, Delhi . . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Chetan Chougule [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1057730634(1) Dt. 06/11/2023 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Coimbatore, [‘Ld. Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Rectification Order Dt. 28/05/2021 Passed U/S 154 Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Cpc’] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’].

condonation nor an affidavit stating therein circumstance due to which such substantial or inordinate delay was occurred. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 7 The Karnataka Multipurpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit. Vs NFeAC ITA Nos.122/PAN/2025 AY: 2018-19 4. Faced with the situation, the appellant assessee came in present appeal with a prayer to remand the matter back to the file

VPK URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MARDOL, PONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI, GOA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

condone the delay and admit these appeals. 3. The assessee’s have raised common grounds in respective appeals challenging the order of the CIT(A) for sustaining the denial of claim u/sec80P of the Act based on the following disputed issues have arised are summarized as under: (i).Where the Cooperative credit society deals with the three class of members

SHRI JAI JINENDRA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

condone the delay and admit these appeals. 3. The assessee’s have raised common grounds in respective appeals challenging the order of the CIT(A) for sustaining the denial of claim u/sec80P of the Act based on the following disputed issues have arised are summarized as under: (i).Where the Cooperative credit society deals with the three class of members

AKSHAYA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,KARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), KARWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

condone the delay and admit these appeals. 3. The assessee’s have raised common grounds in respective appeals challenging the order of the CIT(A) for sustaining the denial of claim u/sec80P of the Act based on the following disputed issues have arised are summarized as under: (i).Where the Cooperative credit society deals with the three class of members

KAIGA PROJECT EMPLOYEES THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY,KARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, KARWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and twenty eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

condone the delay and admit these appeals. 3. The assessee’s have raised common grounds in respective appeals challenging the order of the CIT(A) for sustaining the denial of claim u/sec80P of the Act based on the following disputed issues have arised are summarized as under: (i).Where the Cooperative credit society deals with the three class of members