Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr

398 ITR 250High Court2017#269 most cited

What is Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr authority for?

This case is cited as an authority supporting the condonation of delay in filing income tax appeals, particularly when an assessee presents a request for such condonation.

291

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vishin Meghani v. DCIT · 398 ITR 250 · condonation of delay · appeal filing delay · Section 253(1) · Section 249(2) · delay in income tax appeal · sufficient cause for delay · income tax appeals · limitation period for appeals · Bombay High Court 2017

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 148Section 1963

Issues it is cited on

section 253(1)section 200a(1)(c)section 200a(1)section 200(3)delay in filing appealsection 249(2)section 12ab(1)section 200section 200asection 234esection 246asection 249

Judgments citing Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr

Nawany Corporation India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 539/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.539/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2014-15) Nawany Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. 384/1, Bandana 15Th Road, Bandra (West)Mumbai 400 050 Pan: Aaacn-1471-D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit 13(1)(1), Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Deepak P. Tikekar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2023

For Appellant: Shri Deepak P. TikekarFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

…countants. A perusal of same shows that the CAs had opined that there are bleak chances of success in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submits that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani& Another vs. DCIT, 398 ITR 250 condoned delay of 2984 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal, wherein the delay was caused due to wrong advice of the Chartered Accountants. The ld.Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the decision in the case of Perfect Sclae Co. P. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 60 SOT 255 (Mum) , wherein the Tribunal condoned 513 days delay in filing of…

Preetha Reddy, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 305/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.305/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Preetha Reddy, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 1A, Jhavar Plaza, Nungambakkam Income Tax High Road, Chennai 600 034. Central Circle 3(1), [Pan:Aaepr5656F] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-1, Chennai Dated 30.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 284 Days In Filing The Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit By Stating As Under: “3. I State & Submit That My Case Has Been Handled By Mrs. K. Rajalakshmi Who Is A Chartered Accountant By Profession & She Has Advised Me After Perusal Of The Order Of Pcit (Central), Chennai-1. She Was Of The Opinion

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

…e assessee has also filed an affidavit by stating that she has only advised the assessee not to file any appeal as it is only set aside to the Assessing Officer. 4.1 Similar case was subject matter in appeal in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bom), wherein, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that the plea that the assessee wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced affidavit of Chartered Accountant in support of his plea and the said affidavit was not contested by the revenue authorities, Tribunal was not justifi…

M/S Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…facts on the case. The decision so relied are as under: a) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Improvement Trust vs Ujagar Singh &Ors in Civil Appeal No. 2395 of 2008 dated 09.06.2010. b) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay VishinMegahni Vs. DCIT 398 ITR 250. c) ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Shri Rakesh Tak vs. ITO ITA No. 316 to 318/JP/2020 dated 28.01.2021. 2.3 Per contra the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue strongly objected to the condonation petition on reasons placed before the bench. The assessee is a company availing the professional services of chartered accountant. Their turnove…

Davinder, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for 8statistical purposes

ITA 2794/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2793 & 2794/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2017-18 & 2018-19) Davinder, vs. ITO, Ward 4, H.No.845, Nangal Kheri, Panipat. Panipat – 132 103 (Haryana). (PAN : AXUPD4087B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.03.2023 Date of Order : 10.03.2023 ORDER These appeals by the assessee are directed against the respective orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) pertaining to the Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since the issues are c…

Davinder, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for 8statistical purposes

ITA 2793/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2793 & 2794/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2017-18 & 2018-19) Davinder, vs. ITO, Ward 4, H.No.845, Nangal Kheri, Panipat. Panipat – 132 103 (Haryana). (PAN : AXUPD4087B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.03.2023 Date of Order : 10.03.2023 ORDER These appeals by the assessee are directed against the respective orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) pertaining to the Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since the issues are c…

Zydus Healthcare Ltd, Gangtok vs. ACIT, Cir. 3(2), Gangtok

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA No. 139/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healthcare Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 139/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor to Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [PAN: AAACG1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok…

Viswabharati Mutually Aided Co- Operative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-4(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 364/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 80P

…as reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A), matter may kindly be remitted back to the authorities below for afresh adjudication. In support of his case, Ld. AR filed the following decisions : • Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT – 398 ITR 250 of Bombay High Court. • Royal Airways Lts Vs. Addl.CIT – 98 ITD 259 – Delhi High Court. • All India Primary Teachers Federation Vs. DIT (Exemptions), 93 TTJ 155 – Delhi High Court. • Angela J. Kazi Vs. ITO – 10 SOT 139 of Mumbai Tribunal. • Smt. Rameshwari Devi and another Vs. Sansar Chand and others – AIR 1986 Himachal Pradesh. • Nosegay Public…

ITO Ward-4(3), Hyderabad vs. Viswabharati Mutually Aided Co- Operative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 363/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 80P

…as reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A), matter may kindly be remitted back to the authorities below for afresh adjudication. In support of his case, Ld. AR filed the following decisions : • Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT – 398 ITR 250 of Bombay High Court. • Royal Airways Lts Vs. Addl.CIT – 98 ITD 259 – Delhi High Court. • All India Primary Teachers Federation Vs. DIT (Exemptions), 93 TTJ 155 – Delhi High Court. • Angela J. Kazi Vs. ITO – 10 SOT 139 of Mumbai Tribunal. • Smt. Rameshwari Devi and another Vs. Sansar Chand and others – AIR 1986 Himachal Pradesh. • Nosegay Public…

Viswabharati Mutually Aided Co- Operative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-4(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 362/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 80P

…as reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A), matter may kindly be remitted back to the authorities below for afresh adjudication. In support of his case, Ld. AR filed the following decisions : • Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT – 398 ITR 250 of Bombay High Court. • Royal Airways Lts Vs. Addl.CIT – 98 ITD 259 – Delhi High Court. • All India Primary Teachers Federation Vs. DIT (Exemptions), 93 TTJ 155 – Delhi High Court. • Angela J. Kazi Vs. ITO – 10 SOT 139 of Mumbai Tribunal. • Smt. Rameshwari Devi and another Vs. Sansar Chand and others – AIR 1986 Himachal Pradesh. • Nosegay Public…

Viswabharati Mutually Aided Co- Operative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-4(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 361/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 80P

…as reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A), matter may kindly be remitted back to the authorities below for afresh adjudication. In support of his case, Ld. AR filed the following decisions : • Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT – 398 ITR 250 of Bombay High Court. • Royal Airways Lts Vs. Addl.CIT – 98 ITD 259 – Delhi High Court. • All India Primary Teachers Federation Vs. DIT (Exemptions), 93 TTJ 155 – Delhi High Court. • Angela J. Kazi Vs. ITO – 10 SOT 139 of Mumbai Tribunal. • Smt. Rameshwari Devi and another Vs. Sansar Chand and others – AIR 1986 Himachal Pradesh. • Nosegay Public…

Viswabharati Mutually Aided Co- Operative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 360/HYD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 80P

…as reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A), matter may kindly be remitted back to the authorities below for afresh adjudication. In support of his case, Ld. AR filed the following decisions : • Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT – 398 ITR 250 of Bombay High Court. • Royal Airways Lts Vs. Addl.CIT – 98 ITD 259 – Delhi High Court. • All India Primary Teachers Federation Vs. DIT (Exemptions), 93 TTJ 155 – Delhi High Court. • Angela J. Kazi Vs. ITO – 10 SOT 139 of Mumbai Tribunal. • Smt. Rameshwari Devi and another Vs. Sansar Chand and others – AIR 1986 Himachal Pradesh. • Nosegay Public…

Deepak Bajaj, Kolkata vs. CIT- 14, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 492/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Chatterjee, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ated 25.06.2018 3 Deepak Bajaj, AY 2010-11 ii) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi & Ors. Reported in [1979] 118 ITR 507 (SC) iii) Mercedes Benze Education Academy vs. ITO in ITA No. 745/Pun/2015 v) Vijay Visin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) vi) CIT vs. KSP Shanmugavel Nadai & Ors. (153 ITR 596 ) (Madras- High Court) vii) Orbit Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 513/Kol/2020 for AY 2012-13 dated 22.04.2022 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has condoned the delay of 1535 days for the reason that the assessee was suffering from lungs infection and diabetic and other oldage ailme…

DCIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5629/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 5629 & 5630/Mum/2014 (A.Y: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Dcit, Central Circle-10 Vs. M/S. Keystone Realtors Room No. 802, 8Th Pvt Ltd., Floor, Old Cgo Annexe Natraj, Mv Road, Bldg, Mk Road, Junction, We Highway, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack2499Q Appellant .. Respondent

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 5629 & 5630/Mum/2014 (A.Y: 2008-09 & 2009-10) DCIT, Central Circle-10 Vs. M/s. Keystone Realtors Room No. 802, 8th Pvt Ltd., Floor, Old CGO Annexe Natraj, MV Road, Bldg, MK Road, Junction, WE Highway, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACK2499Q Appellant .. Respondent CO. Nos. 173 & 174/Mum/2018 (Arising out of 5629 & 5630/Mum/2018) (A.Y: 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/s. Keystone Realtors Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- Pvt…

G P Electropnumatics, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 424/PUN/2021[2015-16 (26Q Qtr -1)]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Ms. Vaishnavi BadweFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…Covid-19 pandemic situation prevailing thereafter. 6. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an G.P. Electropneumatics A.Yrs. 2013-14 to 2015-16 adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Similar to the cases under consideration, in that case too, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of Indi…

G P Electropnumatics, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 423/PUN/2021[2014-15 (26Q Qtr -2)]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Ms. Vaishnavi BadweFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…Covid-19 pandemic situation prevailing thereafter. 6. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an G.P. Electropneumatics A.Yrs. 2013-14 to 2015-16 adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Similar to the cases under consideration, in that case too, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of Indi…

G P Electropnumatics, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 422/PUN/2021[2014-15 (26Q Qtr -1)]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Ms. Vaishnavi BadweFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…Covid-19 pandemic situation prevailing thereafter. 6. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an G.P. Electropneumatics A.Yrs. 2013-14 to 2015-16 adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Similar to the cases under consideration, in that case too, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of Indi…

G P Electropnumatics, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 420/PUN/2021[2013-14 (26Q Qtr -3)]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Ms. Vaishnavi BadweFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…Covid-19 pandemic situation prevailing thereafter. 6. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an G.P. Electropneumatics A.Yrs. 2013-14 to 2015-16 adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Similar to the cases under consideration, in that case too, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of Indi…

G P Electropnumatics, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 418/PUN/2021[2013-14 (24Q Qtr -4)]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Ms. Vaishnavi BadweFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…Covid-19 pandemic situation prevailing thereafter. 6. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an G.P. Electropneumatics A.Yrs. 2013-14 to 2015-16 adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Similar to the cases under consideration, in that case too, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of Indi…

G P Electropnumatics, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 421/PUN/2021[2013-14 (26Q Qtr -4)]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Ms. Vaishnavi BadweFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…Covid-19 pandemic situation prevailing thereafter. 6. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an G.P. Electropneumatics A.Yrs. 2013-14 to 2015-16 adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Similar to the cases under consideration, in that case too, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of Indi…

G P Electropnumatics, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 419/PUN/2021[2013-14 (26Q Qtr -2)]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Ms. Vaishnavi BadweFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh P. Murkunde
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

…Covid-19 pandemic situation prevailing thereafter. 6. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an G.P. Electropneumatics A.Yrs. 2013-14 to 2015-16 adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Similar to the cases under consideration, in that case too, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of Indi…