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

Ravinanda Landmarks Unit 3, Pune vs. ITO, Wrd-5(1), Pune

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

ITA 1347/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 226(3)

…24, the assessee came to know of the huge demand for which he consulted another Chartered Accountant who advised him to file the appeal immediately. 8. 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 4 delay has to be condoned. Accordingly the order of the Tribunal refusing…

The Karnataka Multipurpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Chikodi vs. E Assessment, Nipnai

ITA 122/PAN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 122/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Karnataka Multipurpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit. Bhagyalaxmi Nagar, Chikodi, Belgavi-591201. Pan : Aaaat4824A . . . . . . . Appellant V/S National Faceless E-Asstt Centre, Delhi . . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Chetan Chougule [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1057730634(1) Dt. 06/11/2023 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Coimbatore, [‘Ld. Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Rectification Order Dt. 28/05/2021 Passed U/S 154 Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Cpc’] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Chetan Chougule [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(3)

…ency of reasons explained, we are satisfied that the appellant was for sufficient cause prevented from filing present in time allowed and the case of the assessee falls within the parameter set by Hon’ble Courts in ‘Vijay Vishin 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)], thus requiring us to condone the delay in the larger interest of justice. In view thereof the undeliberate delay occurred in instituting present appeal by the appellant assessee, after placing reliance on former judicial precedents, in the…

Seema, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-4(4), Lucknow

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

ITA 255/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Seema, Vs. Income Tax Officer-4(4), 349/276, Suppa House, Bazar Lucknow New Khala, Lucknow-226004 Pan:Ftyps6815K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 14.09.2023, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee, Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3), On 11.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order U/S 250 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals) Nfac Was Passed Without Providing Proper Opportunity To The Appellant, Which Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Therefore, The Same Is Void Ab- Initio & Bad In Law. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Ld Assessing Officer U/S 40(A)(3) Of The Act Amounting To Rs 3,01,36,682/- Without Appreciating The Material On Record & The Facts Of The Case. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming The Disallowance Under Section 40A(3) Without Giving Due Weightage To The Totality Of The Circumstances & Considerations Of Business Expediency Existing In The Present Case As Contemplated In Section 40A(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

…ond the control of the assessee, the delay deserved to be condoned for rendering substantial justice to the assessee. The assessee placed reliance on the following cases in support of her petition: - i. Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) (2017) 398 ITR 250. ii. Just Steels vs. DCIT (2012) 74 DTR (MA) 86 iii. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 iv. Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) v. Collector, Land Acqusition vs. MST. Katji & Ors. vi. CIT vs. S. Duraipandi & Ors vi. Kaikara Construction Co. vs. Jt. CIT, Kollam vii. Vedabai Aoias Vaijayana…

Amit Kumar Yadav, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Seoni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 168/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

…M.P. vs. Khemraj (1978) 114 ITR 75 M.P, the ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Bhagwati Colonizer Pvt. Ltd., vs. ITO in ITA No.169/ASR/2015 dated 22.10.2019 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom). It was submitted that in view of the given facts and circumstances of the case, the delay was worthy of being condoned. The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions made by the assessee and observed that it was the duty of the assessee to mention his own details on the ITBA. He held that if the assessee chose to mention the details of any oth…

Amit Kumar Yadav, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Seoni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 166/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

…M.P. vs. Khemraj (1978) 114 ITR 75 M.P, the ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Bhagwati Colonizer Pvt. Ltd., vs. ITO in ITA No.169/ASR/2015 dated 22.10.2019 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom). It was submitted that in view of the given facts and circumstances of the case, the delay was worthy of being condoned. The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions made by the assessee and observed that it was the duty of the assessee to mention his own details on the ITBA. He held that if the assessee chose to mention the details of any oth…

Gurunath Gundu Gojagekar, Belagavi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Belgavi

ITA 143/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 143/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gurunath Gundu Gojagekar 508, Hindu Nagar, Tilakwadi, Belgavi-590006. Pan : Aappg4152N . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073157632(1) Dt. 12/02/2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Rectification Dt. 02/03/2021 Passed U/S 154 Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Belagavi [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2013-14 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 154Section 246ASection 250

…th Gundu Gojagekar Vs ACIT ITA Nos.143/PAN/2025 AY: 2013-14 2. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay of 15 days in instituting present appeal, 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. NFAC. Recording the same, advanced accordingly. 3. Without touching the merits…

Srithik Ispat Private Limited, Goa vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1) Panaji, Goa, Panaji

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year: 2016-17 Srithik Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 3, Sanguem Industrial Estate, Sanguem, Goa-403704 Pan : Aaics1765P . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By: Mrs Girija Agrawal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing: 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges Din & Order No 1068425181(1) Dt. 06/09/2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Act Which Originated From Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. [‘Ld. Ao’].

For Appellant: Mrs Girija Agrawal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)Section 40Section 68

…smissal of appeal in contravention of s/s (6) of 250 of the Act. 3. We have vouched sufficiency of reasons behind 98 days delay in filing present appeal and find them fit for condonation, hence condoned in view of ‘Vijay Vishin 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)]. 4. As we note that, the assessee is limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act and was engaged in the business of processing of sponge iron. For the year under consideration, the assessee company filed its return on…

Shiv Pratap Singh Kunwar, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle 1(1)(1) Meerut, Range-14, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 85/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Shiv Pratap Singh Kunwar, Vs Jurisdictional Assessing 508, Begum Bagh, Meerut, Officer, Circle-1(1)(1), Uttar Pradesh-250001 Range-14, Meerut, Pan-Afmpk3273Q Uttar Pradesh-250001 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Hemant Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10029654 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Security Agency. The Appellant Filed His Return Of Income On 17.08.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 46,84,309/- & The Same Was Assessed U/S 143(1) On 11-12-2020 At The Income Of Rs.87,33,921/- Wherein The Cpc Made The Disallowance On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. 3. Against This Order, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before Ld.Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Vide Impugned Order Dated 29.11.2023 Thus, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…he delay is not malafide and requested for condonation of the same. He placed reliance on the following judgements and prayed for the condonation of delay:- Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (i) Vijay Vishin Meghani, vs The DCIT 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) (ii) Just Steels vs DCIT (2012) 74 DTR (MA) 86 (iii) (iv) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 (v) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2395/2008 5. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submits that there is in…

Dileshwar Nath, New Delhi vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 68(5), Delhi, Range Code- 73, New Delhi

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

ITA 75/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…he delay is not malafide and requested for condonation of the same. He placed reliance on the following judgements and prayed for the condonation of delay:- Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (i) Vijay Vishin Meghani, vs The DCIT 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) (ii) Just Steels vs DCIT (2012) 74 DTR (MA) 86 (iii) (iv) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 (v) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2395/2008 5. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submits that there is in…

Dileshwar Nath, Delhi vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 68(5), Delhi, Range Code- 73

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

ITA 74/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…he delay is not malafide and requested for condonation of the same. He placed reliance on the following judgements and prayed for the condonation of delay:- Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst . Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (i) Vijay Vishin Meghani, vs The DCIT 398 ITR 250 (Bom.) (ii) Just Steels vs DCIT (2012) 74 DTR (MA) 86 (iii) (iv) Oracle India Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 13 DTR 371 (v) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2395/2008 5. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submits that there is in…

Micro Plantae Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 5112/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Micro Plantae Ltd. Acit – 5(2), 4, Unity House, 2Nd Floor, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, 8, M.P. Marg, Opera House, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai – 400004. [Pan No. Aaacm3686P] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 144(1)(c)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 40Section 69

…the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. To support submission the learned AR of the assessee has relied upon the following decision.  Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and Ors. 167 ITR 471  Vijay Vishin Meghani vs DCIT and Anr 398 ITR 250  N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy 7 SCC 123  Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Ors 118 ITR 507  Phoenix Mills Ltd. vs ACIT (ITA No. 6240/M/2007 dated 23.03.2010)  CIT vs Phoenix Mills Ltd. (ITA No. 5596 of 2010 dated 09.12.2011) 5 Micro Plantae Ltd.(AY 2005-06)  Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha S. Trivedi vs ITO 125 TTJ 42 …

Gangagiri Maharaj Betsarala Mahila Nagari Patsanstha Ltd, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1418/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 144Section 250Section 5Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…is prayed that the said delay in filing the appeal may please be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. In this respect, the assessee places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in case of Vijay Vishin Meghani v. DCIT [(2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom)(HC)] wherein it has been held that a legal advice tendered by a professional and the litigant acting upon it one way or the other could be a sufficient cause to 4 seek condonation of delay and holding so, a huge delay of 2984 days was condoned by Hon'ble High Court. 5. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the recent decision of Hon'bl…

Sadashiv Krishnappa Namde, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1, Jalna

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

ITA 999/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.999/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vs Ito, Ward 1, Sadashiv Krishnappa Namde, Jalna Brahman Galli, Nandi Mandir, Kadrabad, Jalna- 431203 Maharashtra Pan-Anrpn9966G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 208Section 234Section 234ASection 250

…Representative (DR), I am of the considered view that for reasonable cause assessee could not file the appeal in time. Taking guidance from judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani V/s DCIT and others (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that “none should be deprived of an adjudication on merit unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal”., I hereby condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1] On the facts and in the prevailing circumsta…

Devi Wines, Belagavi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

Accordingly. The grounds thus stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…refore of the considered view that, for a sufficient cause appellant was prevented from filing these appeals within the statutory time limit and since these cases falls within the parameter set by Hon’ble Courts in ‘Vijay Vishin 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)], we placing reliance thereon, in the larger interest of justice have condoned the delay and advanced for adjudication. 5. Without touching grounds & merits of additions, we have heard rival party’s common submissions on the ground concernin…

Devi Wines, Belagavi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

Accordingly. The grounds thus stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 31/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…refore of the considered view that, for a sufficient cause appellant was prevented from filing these appeals within the statutory time limit and since these cases falls within the parameter set by Hon’ble Courts in ‘Vijay Vishin 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)], we placing reliance thereon, in the larger interest of justice have condoned the delay and advanced for adjudication. 5. Without touching grounds & merits of additions, we have heard rival party’s common submissions on the ground concernin…

Devi Wines, Belagavi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

Accordingly. The grounds thus stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…refore of the considered view that, for a sufficient cause appellant was prevented from filing these appeals within the statutory time limit and since these cases falls within the parameter set by Hon’ble Courts in ‘Vijay Vishin 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)], we placing reliance thereon, in the larger interest of justice have condoned the delay and advanced for adjudication. 5. Without touching grounds & merits of additions, we have heard rival party’s common submissions on the ground concernin…

Devi Wines, Belagavi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

Accordingly. The grounds thus stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/PAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…refore of the considered view that, for a sufficient cause appellant was prevented from filing these appeals within the statutory time limit and since these cases falls within the parameter set by Hon’ble Courts in ‘Vijay Vishin 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)], we placing reliance thereon, in the larger interest of justice have condoned the delay and advanced for adjudication. 5. Without touching grounds & merits of additions, we have heard rival party’s common submissions on the ground concernin…

Devi Wines, Belagavi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

Accordingly. The grounds thus stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 28/PAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…refore of the considered view that, for a sufficient cause appellant was prevented from filing these appeals within the statutory time limit and since these cases falls within the parameter set by Hon’ble Courts in ‘Vijay Vishin 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)], we placing reliance thereon, in the larger interest of justice have condoned the delay and advanced for adjudication. 5. Without touching grounds & merits of additions, we have heard rival party’s common submissions on the ground concernin…

Devi Wines, Belagavi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

Accordingly. The grounds thus stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 27/PAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…refore of the considered view that, for a sufficient cause appellant was prevented from filing these appeals within the statutory time limit and since these cases falls within the parameter set by Hon’ble Courts in ‘Vijay Vishin 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)], we placing reliance thereon, in the larger interest of justice have condoned the delay and advanced for adjudication. 5. Without touching grounds & merits of additions, we have heard rival party’s common submissions on the ground concernin…

Richa Rosy D'Souza, Margao vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Margao

Appeals stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 113/PAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)

…accidental & undeliberate. We therefore of the view that for sufficient cause appellant was prevented from filing appeals within statutory period. As these cases falls within the parameter set by Hon’ble Courts in ‘Vijay Vishin 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)], we therefore after placing reliance on former judicial precedents, in the larger interest of justice have condoned the said delay and advanced to adjudicate limited issue of violation of principle of natural justice. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 6…