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

Dyansawandhani Gramin Bigarshati Sahakari Patasanshata Maraydit, Shirwal, Khandala, Satara, Maharashtra vs. Assessing Officer Ward 4 Satara, Aaykar Bhawan, Manjunath Manor, Pawai Naka, Satara

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

ITA 2914/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2914/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Rajkumar Doshi
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2914/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dyansawandhani Gramin Vs. Assessing Officer, Bigarshati Sahakari Ward-4, Satara Patasanshata Maryadit, Shirwal Khandala, Satara 412 801, Maharashtra PAN : AAAD9992P Appellant Respondent : Assessee by Shri Rajkumar Doshi Shri Shashank Ojha (virtual) Revenue by : Date of hearing : 14.01.2026 Date of pronouncement : 20.01.2026 आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2018-19 is directed again…

Advaya Charitable Foundation (Now Btg Advaya Charitable Foundation), Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 6809/MUM/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 12ASection 8

…ie till 2027-2028 in which case the application for renewal was made well within time. Without prejudice to above the mistake being bonafide wrong referring the sub-sections, the delay may be condoned as held in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250/251 Taxman 270/299 CTR 463 (Bom) (HC),delay of 2984 days in filing an appeal before the Tribunal was condoned.It is also stated that the decision in PCIT v. Wipro Ltd (2022) 140 Taxmann.com 223 /446 ITR I (SC) & Commissioner of Customs v Dilip Kumar & Co (2018) 9 SCC 1 are not applicable to the facts of the appellant as the provisions of Section…

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope Junior College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 880/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

…hat in the interest of justice, the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned and the appeal be decided on merit. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT reported in (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that the assessee produced an affidavit of the Chartered Accountant in…

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope Junior College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 879/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

…hat in the interest of justice, the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned and the appeal be decided on merit. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT reported in (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that the assessee produced an affidavit of the Chartered Accountant in…

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 878/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

…hat in the interest of justice, the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned and the appeal be decided on merit. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT reported in (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that the assessee produced an affidavit of the Chartered Accountant in…

Matsyodari Shikshan Sansthas Ankushrao Tope College, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Aurangabad

ITA 877/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C N ChobeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

…hat in the interest of justice, the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned and the appeal be decided on merit. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT reported in (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that the assessee produced an affidavit of the Chartered Accountant in…

Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Lalbahadur Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Belgaum

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 277/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 277/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Lalbhahdur Credit Souharda Sahakari Sangh Niyamit 2471, Lalbahadur Akkamahadevi Chowk, At Post: Shirguppi Tal.:Athani Dist.:Belgaum. Pan : Aagas8466F . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-(521)(1), Karwar. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Jaykumar Patil [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073446535(1) Dt. 19/02/2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/09/2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereafter] For Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereafter].

For Appellant: Mr Jaykumar Patil [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…esent appeal in time. The undeliberate reason as explained in the sworn affidavit is supported by application to that effect. The reason explained in our considered view is enough to pass the test of sufficiency laid in ‘Vijay V Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)]. Therefore, the delay occurred in filing this appeal is condoned and advanced for adjudication on merits. 3. The long and short of the case is that; the assessee is a credit co-operative Sangh/society which filed its revised return of incom…

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward, Kolhapur vs. The New Miraj Education Society, Miraj, Dist. Sangli

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 928/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

…CIT(A) in the matter. The due date for which was 23.09.2022, and therefore, there is a delay of 449 days in filing of the appeal. In this regard, we wish to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT & Anr [(2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom)) wherein it has been held that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Further we also wish to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Pune in case of DCIT, Circle-8, Pune vs. Atlas Copco (India) Limited (ITA No.649/PUN/2013 & 1726/PUN/2014] wher…

Ashajyothi SC/St Mahila Abhivruddhi Kendra, Belagavi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Bangalore

Appeals stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/PAN/2025[2022-23 to 2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 162 & 290/Pan/2025

For Appellant: Mr Noel Gole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(1)Section 80G

…ombine appeal for two separate rejections/orders, which now been corrected. The reasons stated therein and explained in physical hearing establishes ‘sufficient cause’ and thus falls within the parameters laid in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 10 Ashajoyti SC/ST Mahila Abhivruddhi Kendra Vs CIT(E) ITA Nos.162 & 290/PAN/2025 Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC). In view thereof in the larger interest of judice we deem it fit to condone delay in instituting the present appeals u/s 253(1) of t…

Ashajyothi SC/St Mahila Abhivruddhi Kendra, Belgaum vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Bengaluru

Appeals stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/PAN/2025[AY 2022-23 to AY 2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 162 & 290/Pan/2025

For Appellant: Mr Noel Gole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(1)Section 80G

…ombine appeal for two separate rejections/orders, which now been corrected. The reasons stated therein and explained in physical hearing establishes ‘sufficient cause’ and thus falls within the parameters laid in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 10 Ashajoyti SC/ST Mahila Abhivruddhi Kendra Vs CIT(E) ITA Nos.162 & 290/PAN/2025 Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC). In view thereof in the larger interest of judice we deem it fit to condone delay in instituting the present appeals u/s 253(1) of t…

Jai Hind Souharda Pattin Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 168/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Jai Hind Souharda Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Bazar Road, Tal.: Hukkeri, Belgavi-591309 Pan:Aaajj0226F . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal[‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 253(1)Section 80P

…04/11/2025, wherein cause of delay is explained. The reasons stated therein and explained in physical hearing establishes ‘sufficient cause’ and thus finds merits for condonation in view of the parameters laid in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC). In view thereof in the larger interest of judice we deem it fit to condone delay in instituting the present appeal u/s 253(1) of the Act and proceed to adjudicate limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of first appeal by the Ld. CIT(A). Rec…

Prasanna Shrikant Patankar, Satara vs. ITO WD No - 04, Satara

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1693/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1693/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prasanna Shrikant Patankar V The Income Tax Officer, No.35, Raviwar Peth, S. Ward-4, Satara. Azad Chowk, Karad, Satara – 415110. Maharashtra. Pan: Alypp1014A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…me acceptable latitude. ” Unquote. 8.2 Thus, the legal position discernible from the aforesaid decisions that the substantial justice is paramount consideration and pivotal. 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bombay) while condoning the delay of 2984 days observed as under : Quote, “21. We find from paragraph 13 of the order, but for this relevant factors and tests, everything else has been brought into the adjudication by the Tribunal. The Tribunal though aware of these principles but possibly carried away by the fact that the delay of 2984 days is…

Pusa Nanda Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 154/HYD/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.154/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2007-2008) Sri Pusa Nanda Kumar, The Dcit, Hyderabad - 500001. Central Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Acupp6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 50CSection 68

…the Assessing Officer u/sec.50C of the Act is absolutely not tenable and liable to be deleted. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs., DCIT Circle-23(2), Mumbai [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bom). The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has further pointed-out that the matter did not rest even at the stage of advice of the Chartered Accountant, but, the assessee also opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the dispute by filing declaration in Form-1 on 25.12.2020. However, the said application was rejected by the C…

Shri Jyoti Multipurpose Souhard Sahakari Sangh Nyt Examba, Examba, Chikodi, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nippani, Belagavi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 172/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2022-23 Shri Jyoti Multipurpose Souharda Sangh Niyamit Examba, Chikodi, Belgavi-591244 Pan:Aabas2730D . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)Section 253(1)

…r the said delay is explained. The reasons stated therein and explained during the course of physical hearing establishes ‘sufficient cause’ and thus finds merits for condonation in view of the parameters laid in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC). In view thereof in the larger interest of judice we deem it fit to condone ordinary delay caused in instituting the present appeal u/s 253(1) of the Act and proceed to adjudicate the limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of first appeal by…

Tridev Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 427/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Subash Agarwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10A(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 251Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 40A(3)

…ptioned appeal and be read & treated accordingly. 4. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay of 40 & 41 days in instituting these twin appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), in the larger interest of judice deem it fit to condone the same and proceed to adjudicate the limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of first appeal by the Ld. CIT(A), recording the same, we advanced accordingly. ITAT-Raipur Page 2 of 8 T…

Tridev Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle (2), Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Subash Agarwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10A(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 251Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 40A(3)

…ptioned appeal and be read & treated accordingly. 4. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay of 40 & 41 days in instituting these twin appeals, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), in the larger interest of judice deem it fit to condone the same and proceed to adjudicate the limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of first appeal by the Ld. CIT(A), recording the same, we advanced accordingly. ITAT-Raipur Page 2 of 8 T…

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1243/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

…ssee was completely dependent on the earlier Chartered Accountant who failed to respond to statutory notices and also failed to inform the assessee. 7. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, such delay has to be condoned. Accordingly the order of the Tribunal refusing t…

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1242/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

…ssee was completely dependent on the earlier Chartered Accountant who failed to respond to statutory notices and also failed to inform the assessee. 7. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, such delay has to be condoned. Accordingly the order of the Tribunal refusing t…

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1241/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

…ssee was completely dependent on the earlier Chartered Accountant who failed to respond to statutory notices and also failed to inform the assessee. 7. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, such delay has to be condoned. Accordingly the order of the Tribunal refusing t…

Nine Export LLP, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 718/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Ms. Twinkle Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

…elay in filing the appeal'". To support the submissions the ld.AR of the assessee has relied upon various case laws, few of which are as under:- (i) (ii) (iii) 3 ITA NO. 718/JP/2025 NINE EXPORT LLP VS ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR Vijay Vishan Meghani vs DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) Just Stee vs DCIT [2012] 74 DTR 86 (MA) B. Madhuri Goud vs B.Damodar Reddy [2012] 12 SCC 693 The assessee Shri Deepak Agarwal also filed an affidavit deposing therein that 'the above order was served online in ITBA Portal on 29-10-2024 which came into our knowledge in April 2025 when I visited my Counsel's office for some other work as we…