“Section 249(2)(b)”

MAMTA PATHAK,THANE vs. ITO WARD 1(2) THANE, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2012-13 Mamta Pathak, Ito, Ward-1(2), 404, 4Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Shivam Apt., Vs. Ashar It Park Mohanji Sunderji Rd No.9, Wagale Estate, Raghunath Nagar, Thane, Thane, Maharashtra-400604. Maharashtra-400604. Pan : Alcpp3684Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Tanmay Phadke For Revenue : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 07-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

notice of demand u/s 156 and the said notice of demand is even not available on the IT portal and as per section 249(2)(b), the period of limitation for filing appeal has to be counted from the date of service of notice of demand and not from

SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,DESAI ROAD vs. CIT (APPEAL), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes in above terms

dismissed the appeal in limini. The relevant\nportion is extracted below:-\n“3. Decision on condonation of delay\n3.1 As per provisions of Section 249(2)(b) of the Act, appeal against an\nintimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act must be presented within 30\ndays

SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes in above terms

dismissed the appeal in limini. The\nrelevant portion is extracted below:-\n“3. Decision on condonation of delay 3.1 As per provisions of Section 249(2)(b) of\nthe Act, appeal against an intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act must be\npresented within 30 days ... appeals. However, the\nappellant has not given any specific dates or time-period during which the\ndispute arose. As per the provisions of Section 249(2)(b) of the Act, the appeal has\nto be presented within 30 days of the date of service of notice related to the\nintimation

SARNATH CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes in above terms

appeal in limini. The\nrelevant portion is extracted below:-\n\n“3. Decision on condonation of delay 3.1 As per provisions of Section 249(2)(b) of\nthe Act, appeal against an intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act must be\npresented within 30 days of the service ... appeals. However, the\nappellant has not given any specific dates or time-period during which the\ndispute arose. As per the provisions of Section 249(2)(b) of the Act, the appeal has\nto be presented within 30 days of the date of service of notice related to the\nintimation

SARNATH CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,BHULABHAI DESAI vs. CIT(APPEAL), PIRAMAL CHAMBER

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes in above terms

dismissed the appeal in limini. The\nrelevant portion is extracted below:-\n“3. Decision on condonation of delay 3.1 As per provisions of Section 249(2)(b) of\nthe Act, appeal against an intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act must be\npresented within 30 days ... appeals. However, the\nappellant has not given any specific dates or time-period during which the\ndispute arose. As per the provisions of Section 249(2)(b) of the Act, the appeal has\nto be presented within 30 days of the date of service of notice related to the\nintimation

RAHUL RAMESH EKTARE ,THANE vs. CIRCLE 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rahul Ramesh Ektare Circle 5(3)(1) 1101, Dahila, Runwal Garden City, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Balkum, Balukum S.O., Thane, Vs. Karve Rd, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400608 Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aafpe 5470 R Appellant Respondent

summarised as follows:  The intimation under Section 143(1) was issued on 20.05.2019 and the last date for filing appeal under Section 249(2)(b) of the Act was 20.06.2019.  The assessee explained the delay on the ground that he had filed an online response to the demand

ASHOKA GARDEN ENCLAVE CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, (1)(1), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

filed before the CIT(A) against the order of the CPC Bengaluru with a delay of more than 2 years by contravening Section 249(2)(b) of the Act. After receiving the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed a petition under section 154 for rectification

RAJKUMAR GHANSHYAMDAS BAJAJ,GUJRAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, without deciding on merits of any of the grounds of appeal, the matter is restored back to the Ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Rajkumar Ghanshyamdas The Income Tax Officer, Bajaj International Tax Ward 360, A North Unit 3, 1(2)(1), Vs. Apna Nagar, Gandhidham, Mittal Court, Gopalpuri, Kachchh, Mumbai - 400021 Gujarat – 370 240 (Appellant) (Respondent)

that should be the date of Rajkumar Ghanshyamdas Bajaj; A.Y. 2011-12 receipt of order by the Assessee. Accordingly, as per Section 249(2)(b), the appeal is required to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of notice of demand relating to assessment. If the Assessee