FOMENTO KARNATAKA MINING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH FOMENTO RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pan/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Fomento Karnataka Mining Vs. Jcit, Margao Range, Company Private Limited, Margao, Goa. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Private Limited), 102, 1St Floor, Kamat Metropolis-I, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa- 403001. Pan : Aaacf7487K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 27.08.2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Processing & Trading In The Iron Ore. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 30.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.26,40,77,220/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2011 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) At A Total Income Of Rs.26,63,57,955/-. While Doing So, The Assessing Officer Made Disallowance U/S 14A Of Rs.15,49,787/-, Disallowance On Account Of Sundry Creditors Extracting As Fictitious Of Rs.7,30,948/-. 3. Being Aggrieved, An Appeal Was Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A) Contending That No Disallowance U/S 14A Is Required To Be Made In The Absence Of Any Expenditure Incurred To Earn The Exempt Income. It Was Also Contended That No Addition On Account Of Outstanding Creditors Is Required To Be Made, As The Credits Represent The Opening

63,57,955/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.15,49,787/-, disallowance on account of sundry creditors extracting as fictitious of Rs.7,30,948/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) contending that no disallowance u/s 14A is required to be made in the absence of any expenditure incurred

SHRI SHIVAYOGI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BELGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), BELGAVI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and also not considering the provisions of Membership under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. 5. The assessee craves leave add/alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 2 ITA 191/PAN/2019 Shri Shivyagi Urban Co-op. Credit Society

M/S SANKAMTAL HOTEL PRIVATE LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 2 (1), BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Sankamtal Hotel Acit, Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd. Belagavi S. Parthasarathi, Advocate, 3/1, Pranava Vs. Complex, 5Th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore- 560 003. Pan: Aadcs 5106 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Pratibha R., Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), -Belagavi In Ita No.51/Bgm/2016-17 Dated 25.02.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-2(1), Belagavi U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 14.03.2016 For A.Y. 2008-09. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Affidavit Are Placed On Record. From The Affidavit, We Note That The Assessee Was Out Of Station When The Appeal Memo Was Sent To Him By The Counsel For Its Signature & Therefore A Short Delay Of 5 Days Occurred. Considering The Petition & In The Interest Of Justice & Fair Play, We Find It Proper To Admit The Appeal & Proceed To Adjudicate Thereon.

disallowances as made by the learned CIT(A) are arbitrary excessive and ought to be reduced substantially. 3. Before us, Smt. Pratibha R. Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR represented the Department. 4. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is running a hotel under the name

THE ADARSH CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED.,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), BELAGAVI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.26 To 28/Pan/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Adarsh Co-Op. Credit Ito, Ward-1(2), Society Ltd. Bagalkot Vs. A-P: Jugul, Tal: Athani, Dist: Belgaum-591252. Pan: Aaaas 5616 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pramod Vaidhya, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Belagavi In Ita No. Cit(A)/Bgm/10349/2015-16, Cit(A)/Bgm/10518/2014-15 & Cit(A)/Bgm/10136/2015-16 All Dated 27.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Ward-1(2), Belgaum U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2018 & For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.09.2014 & 24.08.2015. 2. The Only Issue In These Three Appeals Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds In All The Appeals & Hence, We Take The Facts & Grounds From Ita No. The Adarsh Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 26/Pan/2019 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Relevant Grounds Raised By Assessee Are Reads As Under:

disallowing the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, in respect of income earned from associate/nominal members. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that…… i. the Citizen’s case is distinguishable on facts as in the present case the dealings are with members and there are no dealings with public at large. ii. regular, associate and nominal

THE ADARSH CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED.,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), BELAGAVI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.26 To 28/Pan/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Adarsh Co-Op. Credit Ito, Ward-1(2), Society Ltd. Bagalkot Vs. A-P: Jugul, Tal: Athani, Dist: Belgaum-591252. Pan: Aaaas 5616 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pramod Vaidhya, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Belagavi In Ita No. Cit(A)/Bgm/10349/2015-16, Cit(A)/Bgm/10518/2014-15 & Cit(A)/Bgm/10136/2015-16 All Dated 27.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Ward-1(2), Belgaum U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2018 & For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.09.2014 & 24.08.2015. 2. The Only Issue In These Three Appeals Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds In All The Appeals & Hence, We Take The Facts & Grounds From Ita No. The Adarsh Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 26/Pan/2019 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Relevant Grounds Raised By Assessee Are Reads As Under:

disallowing the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, in respect of income earned from associate/nominal members. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that…… i. the Citizen’s case is distinguishable on facts as in the present case the dealings are with members and there are no dealings with public at large. ii. regular, associate and nominal

THE ADARSH CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED.,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(2), BELAGAVI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.26 To 28/Pan/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Adarsh Co-Op. Credit Ito, Ward-1(2), Society Ltd. Bagalkot Vs. A-P: Jugul, Tal: Athani, Dist: Belgaum-591252. Pan: Aaaas 5616 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Pramod Vaidhya, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Belagavi In Ita No. Cit(A)/Bgm/10349/2015-16, Cit(A)/Bgm/10518/2014-15 & Cit(A)/Bgm/10136/2015-16 All Dated 27.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Ito, Ward-1(2), Belgaum U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2018 & For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.09.2014 & 24.08.2015. 2. The Only Issue In These Three Appeals Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Denial Of Claim Of Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds In All The Appeals & Hence, We Take The Facts & Grounds From Ita No. The Adarsh Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10, 2012-13 & 2013-14 26/Pan/2019 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Relevant Grounds Raised By Assessee Are Reads As Under:

disallowing the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, in respect of income earned from associate/nominal members. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that…… i. the Citizen’s case is distinguishable on facts as in the present case the dealings are with members and there are no dealings with public at large. ii. regular, associate and nominal

M/S SALITHO ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,PANAJI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - M1, MARGAO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SALITHO ORES PVT. LTD, PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

disallowance made by the AO u/s. 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.5,85,17,297/- cannot be sustained and hence, is deleted. Ground No.2 is allowed.” 4. The Department in this ground substantially had contended that there has been a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the ld. CIT(A) in admission

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

section 2(14) of the Act and further turned down the alternative ground of consequential depreciation thereon. ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 39 M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 038/PAN/2025 AY: 2013-14 3.4 Aggrieved by the actions of tax authorities below, the assessee company came in present appeal on following sole & substantive ground (as raised

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI vs. M/S JAY RAM ORE CARRIERS, VASCO

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.227/Pan/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Vs. M/S. Jay Ram Ore Goa. Carriers, 2Nd Floor, Sunflower Appts, Opp. St. Andrew Church, Vasco, Goa. Pan : Aaffj0752R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth Assessee By : Shri R. D. Onkar Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Respondent-Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Operation Of Barge Of Contract. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed By The Appellant Firm On 29.07.2014 Declaring Total Income

63,190/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Margao (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 09.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.2,61,00,560/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer disallowed the excess remuneration paid

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, MARGAO., MARGAO vs. M/S SALGAONCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

section 41(1) made addition of Rs.59,03,90,714/-. Similarly, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had called for the details of the provisions for expenses debited to Profit & Loss Account which remains unpaid as on 31.03.2011. The details of such provisions are set out by the Assessing Officer vide para 6 of the assessment order

SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,PANAJI vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE., MARGAO

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

section 41(1) made addition of Rs.59,03,90,714/-. Similarly, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had called for the details of the provisions for expenses debited to Profit & Loss Account which remains unpaid as on 31.03.2011. The details of such provisions are set out by the Assessing Officer vide para 6 of the assessment order

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, UDUPI., UDUPI vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK,, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.337/Pan/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi. Vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank, Central Accounts Department, Tax Cell, Head Officer, Manipal. Pan : Aaccs4699E Appellant Respondent C.O. No.01/Pan/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.337/Pan/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Canara Bank (Erstwhile Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi. Syndicate Bank), F.M. Wing, Head Office, 112, J. C. Road, Bengaluru- 560002. Pan : Aaacc6106G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Smt. Ashwini D. Hosmani Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan Smt. S. Lalitha R. Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2023

63,760/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The said additions made by the Assessing Officer is subject matter of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ITAT. Finally, the Assessing Officer passed a consequential order dated 06.05.2013 giving effect to the order of the ITAT dated 16.03.2011 determining the total income under the normal provisions of Rs.123

VIRUPAXAPPA SIDRAMAPPA BEMBALGI,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BELGAVU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 011/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S Virupakaxappa Sidramappa Bembalgi 580, Saraf Katta, Shahapur, Belgaum-590003. Pan : Aadfv3936F . . . . . . . Appellant

disallowance of (i) total URD purchases of ₹1,61,75,480/- and (ii) Labour charges paid for ornamentation ₹3,86,340/- or Option- (B) addition of ₹45,29,674/- on account of estimation of gross profit @40% of estimated ad-hoc sales/turnover of ₹250Lakhs. Since the first option(A) will result into profit of more than the turnover

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