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

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

7 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 8. In view of above, rival parties have concertedly recomputed 902 days delay. Taking note thereof, we advanced to vouch reasons there behind & sufficiency thereof on the strength of material placed on records, vehement rival arguments advanced and case laws relied upon. 9. The appellant tried

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

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

7 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 8. In view of above, rival parties have concertedly recomputed 902 days delay. Taking note thereof, we advanced to vouch reasons there behind & sufficiency thereof on the strength of material placed on records, vehement rival arguments advanced and case laws relied upon. 9. The appellant tried

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

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

7 of 32 Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA No. 278 to 281/PAN/2024 8. In view of above, rival parties have concertedly recomputed 902 days delay. Taking note thereof, we advanced to vouch reasons there behind & sufficiency thereof on the strength of material placed on records, vehement rival arguments advanced and case laws relied upon. 9. The appellant tried

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.

condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature". (Emphasis supplied) ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 34 Leo Deniz Vs DCIT ITA No. 150/PAN/2024 AY: 2016-17 7. As stated earlier, the present appeal is filed with 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

7. To inspire the bench that, length of delay should not be sole attribute in deciding as to whether same should be condonable or not, the Ld. AR inter-alia pressed into service ‘Mool Chandra Vs UOI & Anrs.’ [2025, 1 SCC 625 (SC)]. As against the claim that appellant did not receive physical copy of impugned orders and passing

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

7. To inspire the bench that, length of delay should not be sole attribute in deciding as to whether same should be condonable or not, the Ld. AR inter-alia pressed into service ‘Mool Chandra Vs UOI & Anrs.’ [2025, 1 SCC 625 (SC)]. As against the claim that appellant did not receive physical copy of impugned orders and passing

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

7. To inspire the bench that, length of delay should not be sole attribute in deciding as to whether same should be condonable or not, the Ld. AR inter-alia pressed into service ‘Mool Chandra Vs UOI & Anrs.’ [2025, 1 SCC 625 (SC)]. As against the claim that appellant did not receive physical copy of impugned orders and passing

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

condonation of delay, and subject to rule 18 (supra) perused material placed on record and considered facts in the light of settled position of law. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 JAP Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 005 to 007/PAN/2024 6. We note that, the present appeal against the impugned order dt. 16/09/2022 was instituted by the appellant

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

condonation of delay, and subject to rule 18 (supra) perused material placed on record and considered facts in the light of settled position of law. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 JAP Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 005 to 007/PAN/2024 6. We note that, the present appeal against the impugned order dt. 16/09/2022 was instituted by the appellant

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

condonation of delay, and subject to rule 18 (supra) perused material placed on record and considered facts in the light of settled position of law. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 JAP Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 005 to 007/PAN/2024 6. We note that, the present appeal against the impugned order dt. 16/09/2022 was instituted by the appellant

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

section 80AC of the Act are not complied by the assessee and the A.O has denied the claim of deduction u/sec80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.48,49,739/- and passed the order u/sec144 of the Act dated 16.10.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before

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)

section 194IA of the Act The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. And further notice u/sec142(1) of the Act was issued to furnish the details. Since, no explanations/details were filed, the AO considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions

RANESARDESAI WAMANRAO UDAISINGH,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, MARGAO

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees and revenue are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

condone the delay of 7 days in both the appeals. 3. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that the assessees in their respective appeals and the department in its respective appeals have filed the declarations in Form No.1 and Form No.2 and the Designated Authority has issued the certificate in Form No.3 as per Section

BAHUBALI ALIAS SUNIL SUKUMAR JOLAPURE,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, MARGAO

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees and revenue are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

condone the delay of 7 days in both the appeals. 3. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that the assessees in their respective appeals and the department in its respective appeals have filed the declarations in Form No.1 and Form No.2 and the Designated Authority has issued the certificate in Form No.3 as per Section

M/S ABDULLA ASSOCIATES,NIPANI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELGAVI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees and revenue are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

condone the delay of 7 days in both the appeals. 3. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that the assessees in their respective appeals and the department in its respective appeals have filed the declarations in Form No.1 and Form No.2 and the Designated Authority has issued the certificate in Form No.3 as per Section

RANESARDESAI WAMANRAO UDAISINGH,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, MARGAO

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

condone the delay of 7 days in both the appeals. 3. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that the assessees in their respective appeals and the department in its respective appeals have filed the declarations in Form No.1 and Form No.2 and the Designated Authority has issued the certificate in Form No.3 as per Section

SRI NAGAPPA D. WADDAR.,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BELGAUM.., BELGAUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees and revenue are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

condone the delay of 7 days in both the appeals. 3. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that the assessees in their respective appeals and the department in its respective appeals have filed the declarations in Form No.1 and Form No.2 and the Designated Authority has issued the certificate in Form No.3 as per Section

SHRI MAHALAXMI URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT BANK LTD.,GOKAK vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), BELGAUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees and revenue are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

condone the delay of 7 days in both the appeals. 3. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that the assessees in their respective appeals and the department in its respective appeals have filed the declarations in Form No.1 and Form No.2 and the Designated Authority has issued the certificate in Form No.3 as per Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. NAGAPPA DEVAPPA WADDAR, RAICHUR

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am

condone the delay of 7 days in both the appeals. 3. At the outset, on perusal of the record, we found that the assessees in their respective appeals and the department in its respective appeals have filed the declarations in Form No.1 and Form No.2 and the Designated Authority has issued the certificate in Form No.3 as per Section