THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

condoning the delay, para 8 of the circular would be a hurdle which is not questioned by the petitioner. The cited decisions has no assistance to the petitioner having regard to the factual aspect of the present matter. The petitioner has not explained the inordinate delay and laches from July 21, 2006 to May 24, 2011. The cited decision

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

condoning the delay, para 8 of the circular would be a hurdle which is not questioned by the petitioner. The cited decisions has no assistance to the petitioner having regard to the factual aspect of the present matter. The petitioner has not explained the inordinate delay and laches from July 21, 2006 to May 24, 2011. The cited decision

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

condoning the delay, para 8 of the circular would be a hurdle which is not questioned by the petitioner. The cited decisions has no assistance to the petitioner having regard to the factual aspect of the present matter. The petitioner has not explained the inordinate delay and laches from July 21, 2006 to May 24, 2011. The cited decision

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

condoning the delay, para 8 of the circular would be a hurdle which is not questioned by the petitioner. The cited decisions has no assistance to the petitioner having regard to the factual aspect of the present matter. The petitioner has not explained the inordinate delay and laches from July 21, 2006 to May 24, 2011. The cited decision

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

condone delay can result in a meritorious\nmatter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of\njustice being defeated. As against this, when delay is\ncondoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause\nwould be decided on merits after hearing the parties.\n(3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean\nthat a pedantic

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

condone delay can result in a meritorious\nmatter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of\njustice being defeated. As against this, when delay is\ncondoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause\nwould be decided on merits after hearing the parties.\n(3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean\nthat a pedantic

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

condoning the delay, para 8 of the circular would be a hurdle which is not questioned by the petitioner. The cited decisions has no assistance to the petitioner having regard to the factual aspect of the present matter. The petitioner has not M/s. SJS Enterprises, Bangalore Page 10 of 14 explained the inordinate delay and laches from July

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

condoning the delay, para 8 of the circular would be a hurdle which is not questioned by the petitioner. The cited decisions has no assistance to the petitioner having regard to the factual aspect of the present matter. The petitioner has not explained the inordinate delay and laches from July 21, 2006 to May 24, 2011. The cited decision

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

condoned or not. Even for\ncondoning the delay, para 8 of the circular would be a hurdle which is not\nquestioned by the petitioner. The cited decisions has no assistance to the petitioner\nhaving regard to the factual aspect of the present matter. The petitioner has not\nexplained the inordinate delay and laches from July

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

condoned or not. Even for\ncondoning the delay, para 8 of the circular would be a hurdle which is not\nquestioned by the petitioner. The cited decisions has no assistance to the petitioner\nhaving regard to the factual aspect of the present matter. The petitioner has not\nexplained the inordinate delay and laches from July

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condoned or not. Even for\ncondoning the delay, para 8 of the circular would be a hurdle which is not\nquestioned by the petitioner. The cited decisions has no assistance to the petitioner\nPage 13 of 18\nhaving regard to the factual aspect of the present matter. The petitioner has not\nexplained the inordinate delay and laches from July

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause" the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance and the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. Therefore, this Judgment of the Madras