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

Deepak Bajaj, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 569/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 263

…/Coch/2017 for AY 2006-07 dated 25.06.2018 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…

Municipal Council, Chalisgaon vs. DCIT TDS Nashik and DCIT CPC TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1279/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 200ASection 234E

…cause or a reasonable cause for delay in filing of appeal. This kind of approach was held to be incorrect by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of (i) EBR Enterprises vs. Union of India, 89 taxmann.com 194 (Bom.) and (ii) Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 398 ITR 250 (Bom.). In the light of this law laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases referred to supra, we 3 are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. In the circumstances, we restore this matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with direction to dispose the appe…

Aneeka Universal Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-9, Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7115/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 263Section 57

…ct legal advice. The Authorised Representative of the Appellant has relied upon the Judgments of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Healtycare Ltd Vs. CIT: Income Tax Appeal No. 1210 of 2017, and Vijay Vishin Megahani V. DCIT: 398 ITR 250. We note that in the aforesaid judgments, in similar circumstances, delay in filing the appeal has been condoned. The delay application is supported by an affidavit from the chartered accountant representing the Appellant at the relevant time who has, in paragraph 3 thereof, stated to have provided legal advice which was later found to be „inapt‟…

Karnataka Mahila Hindi Seva Samithi, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 399/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.C.Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(22)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

…n filing the appeal is caused due to the advise of the Tax Consultant, the delay is not on account of any malafide or negligence on the part of the assessee. In this context, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements:- (a) Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT 398 ITR 250 (Bom) (b) Vinod AGarwal v. PCIT 61 ITR (Trib) 598 (Kol.) 7.3 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. MST.Katiji and Others reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) had held that it cannot be presumed that delay is deliberate, because the litigant does not stand to benefit by resulting in delay. The Hon’ble Apex Court had…

Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 4 (1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2022/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
Section 14ASection 22Section 80I

…cisions for Condonation Delay of filing of Appeal: 1) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987)167ITR471(SC) 2) Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507 (SC) 3) Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs Dy. CIT & Anr. [2017] 398 ITR 250( Bom) 4) Mercedes Benz Education Academy Vs. ITO. Ward-11(1), Pune. ITA No. 745/PUN/2015; Order dated 17.05.2019 5) M/s Bhagwati Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The ITO, ward-1(4), Mansa. ITA No. 169, Order dated 22.10.2019 The Appellant humbly prays that, based on the totality of the facts & circumstances stated herein above and in Memorandum of con…

Shri Banwari Lal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 651/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Amrish Bedi, (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 144

…of the above, an affidavit dated 25.09.2019 duly sworn in by Shri Banwari Lal, the assessee, has been filed before this Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee citing the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT, (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bombay) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh, Civil Appeal Nos. 2395 of 2008 dated 26.06.2010 (SC), and various other decisions, submitted that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned by the Appellate Authority requiring substantial justice to the assessee and the order of the ld. CIT (A) be set aside…

Shri Rakesh Garh, Kishangarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kishangarh

ITA 318/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 271B

…ng appeal the delay must be condone by the appellate authority specially when it is necessary for rendering the substantial justice to the assessee. The following case laws are quoted in support: - (i) Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) (2017) 398 ITR 250 Appeal—Condonation of Delay—Claim for deduction under Section 80-O made by Assessee was disallowed by AO for Assessment Year 1993-94 and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)—Against order of Commissioner, assessee preferred appeal before Tribunal—Tribunal restored matter back to file of AO for Assessment Year 1993-94—AO passed o…

Shri Rakesh Garg, Kishangarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kishangarh

ITA 317/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 271B

…ng appeal the delay must be condone by the appellate authority specially when it is necessary for rendering the substantial justice to the assessee. The following case laws are quoted in support: - (i) Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) (2017) 398 ITR 250 Appeal—Condonation of Delay—Claim for deduction under Section 80-O made by Assessee was disallowed by AO for Assessment Year 1993-94 and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)—Against order of Commissioner, assessee preferred appeal before Tribunal—Tribunal restored matter back to file of AO for Assessment Year 1993-94—AO passed o…

Smt. Panchi Devi, Baswa vs. ITO, Ward, Dausa

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

ITA 1324/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Instead Of Deciding The Issue, As Raised By The Assessee Has Rejected The Ground By Giving Some Irrelevant Reasoning.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (ACIT)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147(1)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1324/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Smt. Panchi Devi The ITO, Vs. W/o Sh. Ram Kishan Meena, Ward, Village- Pundarpada, Dausa. Tehsil- Baswa, Dausa. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: EIJPD 0848 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S. L. Poddar (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

Vijay Engineering Enterprises, Nagpur vs. ITO, WD, -8(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 101/NAG/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Feb 2020AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Milind Bhusari
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 271C

…Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’). 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 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 India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 50…

M/S Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inocme Tax Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 254/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.253 & 254/Nag/2018 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Western Coalfields Ltd. Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-400 001. Pan : Aaacw1578L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Milind Bhusari
Section 143(3)

…Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’). 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 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 India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 50…

M/S Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inocme Tax Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 253/NAG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.253 & 254/Nag/2018 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Western Coalfields Ltd. Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-400 001. Pan : Aaacw1578L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Milind Bhusari
Section 143(3)

…Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’). 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 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 India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 50…

Santosh Raju Shetty, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1757/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra, CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…nd Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), N Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, Baburao Deorao Wankhede vs. Sewa Sahakari Sanstha and Ors. (WP No. 1974 of 1979) (Bombay High Court), Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom), Hardillia Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 194 (Bom), the order of the Tribunal in M/s DBS Bank Ltd. vs. DDIT (CO No. 189/Mum/2013 for AY 1995-96), Urudavan Investment and Trading P. Ltd. vs. CIT (ITA No. 3815/Mum/2019 for A.Y. 2004-05, Shri Ashok Pandurang Gaikwad vs. CIT (ITA No. 6191/Mum/2009 for A.Y. 2005-06), Mr. Kewal Kumar Jain…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Pune

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

ITA 1726/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…ome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’). 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 adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Similar to the cases under consideration, in that 3 Atlas Copco (India) Limited A.Yrs. 2008-09 and 2009-10 case too, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord…

Dy. CIT, Circle-8, Pune vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Pune

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

ITA 649/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…ome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’). 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 adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Similar to the cases under consideration, in that 3 Atlas Copco (India) Limited A.Yrs. 2008-09 and 2009-10 case too, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord…

Shree Ganesh Datt Tularam Pathak, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Shree Ganesh Datt Tularam Vs. Acit-31, C-11, Building Pathak, Pratyakshar Bhavan C/O. Prashant S Mehta & Bandra- Kurla Complex Associates Bandra (E) 201, Reddy Shree Shivdatta Mumbai - 51 Building, Opp. Lords College Station Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400 062 Pan/Gir No.Alcpp1015F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…had resulted in delay in filing of appeal before us by 222 days. We find that the ld. AR also placed on record the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani & Anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr reported in 398 ITR 250 (Bom) wherein the delay of 2984 days was condoned by the Hon’ble Court on the set of facts before it. We find that the assessee had adduced reasonable cause for the delay and in the interest of substantial justice, the issue requires to be adjudicated on merits after condoning the delay thereof, accordingly, we admit the appeal for adjudication.…

Astec Life Sciences Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 955/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. D C I T - 2(1) 3Rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaaca4832D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: S/s. Jitendra Jain, Gopal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…on of delay in filing the appeal and accordingly the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) may be directed to be condoned. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishing Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250. The assessee also relied upon the following case law: - i. Faisal Hameed vs. ITO (2013) 256 CTR 429 (J & K) ii. International Air Transport Association vs. ADIT (2016) 179 TTJ 254 (Mum-Trib) iii. ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (2017) 154 DTR 241 (Del) (SB). iv. Vinod Agarwal vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 61 ITR(T) 598 (Kol-Trib) v. International Socie…

M/S Shree Bankey Bihari Educational Society (Regd), Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2497/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2497/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Shree Bankey Bihari Educational Vs Addl. Cit, Society (Regd.), Nh-24, Near Range-2, Masuri Canal, Dasna Mauri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad-201302 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadts4243G Assessee By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.10.2012 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…by the ld. CIT(A) at the address of the assessee rather it was given to the Counsel who inadvertently did not serve the same to the assessee. He requested to condone the delay. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs DCIT 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) 5. In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR opposed the application for condonation of delay and submitted that the order was served upon the Counsel for the assessee within the time but the appeal was not filed in the stipulated time, therefore, the delay may not be condoned. However, he admitted that the impugned order was not served at…

Vijay Kundu, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 808/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 808/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kundu, Vs Pr. Cit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Delhi-21, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Ext., New Delhi Part-2, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk7914P Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 263

…e above, an affidavit of Advocate Sh. Rakesh Bobal was filed which is placed on record. It was stated that the delay took place for a bonafide reason, the same may be condoned. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs DCIT 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) " Oracle India (P) Ltd. 118 TTJ 812 (Del.) " Perfect Scale Co. (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 60 SOT 255 (Mum.) Request has been made to condone the delay. 4. In his rival submissions, the ld. CIT DR opposed the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and the material…

Shri Mohanbhai D. Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Surat

In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the directions to the Assessing Officer as mentioned hereinabove

ITA 1652/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1647, 1648 & 1649/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S.Lakhaniimpex, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of B-5, Ramnagar Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Matawadi, Surat. [Pan: Aabfl 0491K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1652, 1653 & 1651/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2001-02 Shrimohanbhaid.Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5/C & D Allokik Apartment, 9(3), Surat. Sumul Dairy Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Abrpp 4747M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1824/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Shreyaimpex, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4407, Kohinoor Textile Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat. [Pan : Aapfs 9634K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1629 & 1630/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-2003 &2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-1, Ragen-2, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aapfs 9840D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1642 & 1641/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2003-04 & 2002-03 M/S.Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Osd-I, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Range-2, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidari, Cit, Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A &For Respondent: ShriSrinivasT.Bidari, CIT, DR &

…lly and carefully perused the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts, relied by the ld.Authorised Representative (AR) including recent judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay VishinMeghani vs. DCIT reported as [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bom). 3. First of all, we note that in this group of 11 (eleven) appeals,there are 6 appeals, wherein, delay in filing appeal in more than 1000 days and in other 5 appeals there is delay more than 2800 days. As agreed by both the parties that the facts and circumstances causing delay in the group of 6 appeals, wherein delay is of more than 1000…