SONHIRA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(2)(5), MUMBAI

Under law the ADDL/ dismis Honora and T deduct 1961 c 2. Under law the ADDL/ applyin statem with Fo 3. Under law the ADDL/ of hea file doc the inti the do submis of tax l 4. 4 Unde law th APPEA proper the pro wrongf to the income coopera 5. 5 The levied of Rs.6 Rs.3,4 6. 6 The A epidem to mis income opportu compu 2. At the outset, appellant has drawn Sonhira Sha ITA the facts and in the circumstances of the e learned COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T /JCIT(A)AGRA has erred in passing sing the appeal without appreciatin able Supreme Court Order as well as ma Tribunal Judgement, which has upheld tion under section 80P(2)(d) of the Inc claimed by the appellant society. the facts and in the circumstances of the e learned COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T /JCIT(A), AGRA has erred in passing the ng his mind at all to the grounds of ment of facts and revised computation of orm No.35. the facts and in the circumstances of the e learned COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T /JCIT(A), AGRA has erred in not serving p ring and deprived the opportunity to the cuments in support of grounds of appea imation order. The appellant was preven cuments in support of grounds of appea ssion to substantiate its claim of wrongf liability. er the facts and in the circumstances of th he learned COMMISSIONER OF INC ALS ADDL/JCIT(A), AGRA has erred opportunity to the appellant to save fro ofessional who has filed ITR-7 Form wron ful computation of income, instead of ITR appellant to claim the deduction u/s. 8 e tax Act, 1961 of the interest earn rative banks of Rs.6,49,533.00. CIT appeal erred in confirming the inte by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, CP 685.00, u/s 234(B) of Rs. 16,440.00 and 60.00 Appellant is facing financial difficulties s mic. The undue burden of tax is coming o stakes made by professional who had e tax return form. Hence, Appellant be unity to rectify the genuine ting Taxable income. learned counsel appearing on n our attention to the applicatio akari Patpedhi Maryadit 2 A No. 2567/MUM/2025 e case and in TAX, APPEALS g the order ng the latest any High Court the claim of ome Tax Act, e case and in TAX, APPEALS e order by not f appeall and f income filed e case and in TAX, APPEALS proper notices e appellant to al and to rebut nted from filing al and written ful calculation he case and in COME TAX , in not giving om mistake of ngly based on R-5 applicable 0P(2)(d) of the ned from the rest20,585.00 PC u/s 234(A) u/s 234(C) of since Covid 19 on society due d filed wrong e granted an mistake in n behalf of the on filed seeking condonation of delay Appellate Tribunal. passed by the ld CIT has been filed before a delay of 290 days. it has been submitt intimation of the app appeal in time. It ha not well-versed with income-tax filing an professionals. Accor rectification applicati 01.03.2019 under se disposed of nor a Department. The ap communication dat Assessing Officer forw was the appellant ma Consequently, the p from the written subm “The appea 01.03.2019 Act, 1961 by before CIT(A ADDL/JCIT(A the ground responded. H Sonhira Sha ITA in preferring the appeal before The record reveals that the i T(A) is dated 27.06.2024, whe e the ITAT on 15.04.2025, ther In support of the application f ted that the appellant had n pellate order and, therefore, co as further been submitted that h the procedural and electroni nd assessment and had relied rding to the appellant, altho ion was filed against the intimat ection 143(1) of the Act, the sa any communication was rece ppellant contends that only up ted 03.04.2025 from the warding the dismissal order dat ade aware of the fate of the earl present appeal was filed. The r mission filed by the assessee rea al was filed against the Intimation passed under section 143(1) of the y CPC, Bengaluru for A.Y.2017-18 o Appeals). The Commissioner of Incom (A) AGRA DISMISSED the appeal on 2 of all notices served upon the appel However, by dismissing the appeal h akari Patpedhi Maryadit 3 A No. 2567/MUM/2025 the Income Tax impugned order reas the appeal reby occasioning for condonation, not received the ould not file the the appellant is ic formalities of d entirely upon ugh an online tion order dated ame was neither eived from the pon receiving a Juri ictional ted 27.06.2024, lier proceedings. relevant extract ads as under: Order dated INCOME Tax on 22.03.2024 e Tax, Appeal 27.06.2024 on llant were not he violated the provisions of appeal, the C inquiries him give a report Hence online order vide R under sec 15 ACKNOLEGE will be upda not received Letter writte are unable HEARING O appeal orde Grievance w today. In th Juri ictiona dtd.03.04.20 "The order 27.06.2024 the appellan 2.1 Having conside perusal of the record appeal was caused d due to any delibera appellant. According and the appeal is adm 2.2 Turning to the m CIT(A) indicates that compliance, observin multiple statutory no Sonhira Sha ITA of Section 250 (4) of IT Act. Before d Commissioner may find a reason to c mself or order an Assessing Officer t t to him, which he has failed to do. e application was made for rectificat Rectification ref no 355560330060824 54: ITBA/APL/ S/250/2024-25/106 ED. It was informed that any progress ated by concerned CIT(A)/NFAC. How d any communication from CIT(A)/NF en to AO, but AO is clueless about th to contact the CIT(A)/NFAC THE M OF OUR APPLICATION FOR RECT er. Since no response was receive was raised on 12.02.2025, which is n he meantime, the appellant receive al Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(2 025 informing that the resolution of u/s.250 of the IT Act passed by and enclosed the appeal dismissal nt is filing the appeal now.” ered the explanation furnish d, we are satisfied that the de ue to sufficient and bona fide r ate inaction or negligence on t ly, the delay in filing the appe mitted for adjudication on merit merits of the matter, the impugn the appeal before him was dis ng that the appellant had failed otices issued through the Incom akari Patpedhi Maryadit 4 A No. 2567/MUM/2025 dismissing an onduct further to inquire and tion of appeal 4 dtd.6.8.2024 6113846(1) IS s on the status wever, we have FAC till today. he matter. We MATTER FOR TIFICATION of ed again the ot resolved till ed letter from 2)(5), Mumbai the grievance Ld.CIT(A) on order. Hence hed, and upon lay in filing the easons, and not the part of the eal is condoned, s. ned order of the missed for non- d to respond to me Tax Business