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 367,154 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

Akash Peg Bar, Belgaum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

ITA 62/PAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Mr BS Balachandran [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Satish M [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…eliberate. We therefore of the view that for sufficient cause appellants were prevented from filing former appeals within the statutory time limit. 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 4 of…

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

ITA 129/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr BS Balachandran [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Satish M [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…eliberate. We therefore of the view that for sufficient cause appellants were prevented from filing former appeals within the statutory time limit. 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 4 of…

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

ITA 128/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr BS Balachandran [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Satish M [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…eliberate. We therefore of the view that for sufficient cause appellants were prevented from filing former appeals within the statutory time limit. 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 4 of…

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

ITA 127/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Mr BS Balachandran [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Satish M [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…eliberate. We therefore of the view that for sufficient cause appellants were prevented from filing former appeals within the statutory time limit. 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 4 of…

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

ITA 126/PAN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Mr BS Balachandran [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Satish M [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…eliberate. We therefore of the view that for sufficient cause appellants were prevented from filing former appeals within the statutory time limit. 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 4 of…

Siddeshwar Wines, Belagaum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belgavi

ITA 125/PAN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Mr BS Balachandran [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Satish M [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…eliberate. We therefore of the view that for sufficient cause appellants were prevented from filing former appeals within the statutory time limit. 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 4 of…

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

ITA 124/PAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Mr BS Balachandran [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Satish M [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…eliberate. We therefore of the view that for sufficient cause appellants were prevented from filing former appeals within the statutory time limit. 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 4 of…

Nidhi Bar and Restaurant, Belgaum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

ITA 122/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr BS Balachandran [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Satish M [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…eliberate. We therefore of the view that for sufficient cause appellants were prevented from filing former appeals within the statutory time limit. 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 4 of…

Nidhi Bar and Restaurant, Belgaum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

ITA 121/PAN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Mr BS Balachandran [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Satish M [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…eliberate. We therefore of the view that for sufficient cause appellants were prevented from filing former appeals within the statutory time limit. 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 4 of…

Nidhi Bar and Restaurant, Belgaum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

ITA 120/PAN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Mr BS Balachandran [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Satish M [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…eliberate. We therefore of the view that for sufficient cause appellants were prevented from filing former appeals within the statutory time limit. 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 4 of…

Nidhi Bar and Restaurant, Belgaum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

ITA 119/PAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Mr BS Balachandran [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Satish M [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…eliberate. We therefore of the view that for sufficient cause appellants were prevented from filing former appeals within the statutory time limit. 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 4 of…

Nidhi Bar and Restaurant, Belgaum vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

ITA 118/PAN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Mr BS Balachandran [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Satish M [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

…eliberate. We therefore of the view that for sufficient cause appellants were prevented from filing former appeals within the statutory time limit. 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 4 of…

Mahendra Singh Naruka, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

ITA 205/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…n case of United Christmas Celebration Committee Charitable Trust vs. ITO (2017) 249 Taxman 372 (Mad), Hosanna Ministries vs. ITO, (2017) 152 DTR (Mad) 8, Mukesh Jesangbhai Patel vs. ITO (2013) 29 taxmann.com 389 (Guj) and Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom). It was accordingly submitted that the prayer of the assessee for condonation of the delay may be accepted and appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merits. ii. The Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur bench, Jaipur in the case of Shri Kishan Lal vs ITO, Ward-2(4), Kota, (ITA NO. 732/JPR/2018) dated 16-09-2020 held that: “It was submitted that the as…

Mahendra Singh Naruka, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

ITA 204/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR a
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…n case of United Christmas Celebration Committee Charitable Trust vs. ITO (2017) 249 Taxman 372 (Mad), Hosanna Ministries vs. ITO, (2017) 152 DTR (Mad) 8, Mukesh Jesangbhai Patel vs. ITO (2013) 29 taxmann.com 389 (Guj) and Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom). It was accordingly submitted that the prayer of the assessee for condonation of the delay may be accepted and appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merits. ii. The Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur bench, Jaipur in the case of Shri Kishan Lal vs ITO, Ward-2(4), Kota, (ITA NO. 732/JPR/2018) dated 16-09-2020 held that: “It was submitted that the as…

Shriram Gramin Sanshodhan Va Vikas Pratishthan, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Solapur

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

ITA 864/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.864/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Ram Gramin Sanshodhan V The Income Tax Officer, Va Vikas Pratishthan, S Ward-2(1), Solapur. A/P Wadala, Tal.North Solapur, District Solapur – 413222. Maharashtra. Pan: Aadts8337H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2025

Section 11Section 12ASection 154Section 250Section 40

…d there is no presumption that delay is intentional and deliberate, as ITA No.864/PUN/2025 [A] normally a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay” Unquote. 4.2 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, “ 14. The assessee did not rest here. He supported this application with an affidavit of one Chandrashekhar, son of S.A. Yogeshwar, a practicing Chartered Accountant and Managing Partner of M/s. Rajesh Rajeev & Associates. The affidavit of the said Chandrashekhar confirmed…

Fatimabai Hajimiya Kokani Pvt Trust., Nashik vs. ITO (Exep) Ward 1, Nashik

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

ITA 2373/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2373/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 5

…ontention, he placed reliance on the following decisions : “1. Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 Live Law (Supreme Court) 339 dated 21.03.2025 2. Venkatadri Traders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 681 (Mad HC). 3. Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom HC) 4. M.K. Hotels and Resorts Ltd. Vs. ACIT - ITA No.57/Asr/2021 order dated 01.03.2023.” 6 Fatimabai Hajimiya Kokani Pvt. Trust 7. Further, Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that even though the ld.CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order dealing with merits of the case, however, it has been consistently held by Hon’ble Courts th…

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 655/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

…y merits of the case. We have perused the Affidavit filed by the Assessee and noted that there was sufficient cause for Delay. ITA Nos.652 to 655/PUN/2025 (04 Appeals) [A] 4.1 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, “ 14. The assessee did not rest here. He supported this application with an affidavit of one Chandrashekhar, son of S.A. Yogeshwar, a practicing Chartered Accountant and Managing Partner of M/s. Rajesh Rajeev & Associates. The affidavit of the said Chandrashekhar confirmed…

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 654/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

…y merits of the case. We have perused the Affidavit filed by the Assessee and noted that there was sufficient cause for Delay. ITA Nos.652 to 655/PUN/2025 (04 Appeals) [A] 4.1 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, “ 14. The assessee did not rest here. He supported this application with an affidavit of one Chandrashekhar, son of S.A. Yogeshwar, a practicing Chartered Accountant and Managing Partner of M/s. Rajesh Rajeev & Associates. The affidavit of the said Chandrashekhar confirmed…

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 653/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

…y merits of the case. We have perused the Affidavit filed by the Assessee and noted that there was sufficient cause for Delay. ITA Nos.652 to 655/PUN/2025 (04 Appeals) [A] 4.1 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, “ 14. The assessee did not rest here. He supported this application with an affidavit of one Chandrashekhar, son of S.A. Yogeshwar, a practicing Chartered Accountant and Managing Partner of M/s. Rajesh Rajeev & Associates. The affidavit of the said Chandrashekhar confirmed…

Unus Abdulgafar Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 652/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

…y merits of the case. We have perused the Affidavit filed by the Assessee and noted that there was sufficient cause for Delay. ITA Nos.652 to 655/PUN/2025 (04 Appeals) [A] 4.1 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, “ 14. The assessee did not rest here. He supported this application with an affidavit of one Chandrashekhar, son of S.A. Yogeshwar, a practicing Chartered Accountant and Managing Partner of M/s. Rajesh Rajeev & Associates. The affidavit of the said Chandrashekhar confirmed…