← All Phrases

“Section 249(2)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 249Section 249(2)(b)22 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 249(2)(b) is 249 ITR 533 (Bom) and CIT(E) v. Audyogik (101 Taxmann.com 247), cited in 22 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 249(2)(b)

249 ITR 533 (Bom) and CIT(E) v. Audyogik
101 Taxmann.com 247 · 2019 · High Court
22
citing judgments

Denial of exemption under Section 11 to a charitable trust should be limited to the extent of funds diverted or utilized in violation of Section 13(2)(b) read with Section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, and not the entire exemption or cancellation of registration.

Judgments citing 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

ITA 3200/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

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:

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 192Section 69

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

Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. Ld. ITO, Ward 35(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3447/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 270A

conditions precedent specified in sub-section (1) of Section 270AA have been complied with? (b) The period for filing an appeal under Section 249(2)(b) having passed. (c) The subject matter of penalty not falling within the ambit of Section 270A (9). 26. Since an application for grant

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

ITA 3207/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 250

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

Sant Harajindar Singh, Pilibhit vs. Income Tax Officerito-2(4), Pilibhit-1, Pilibhit

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

ITA 565/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasant Harajindar Singh V. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Trilok Singh Santpipariya Pilibhit-1 Karam Puranpur, Pilibhit, Uttar Income Tax Office, Near Pradesh-262122. Lic Office, Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh-262001. Pan:Dlmps4218F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(2)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH

Sarnath Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2550/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan1. Ita No. 2548/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 2549/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 2550/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2020-21) Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 59-B, Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Breach Candy, Mumbai-400 026 Pan: Aaaas3230K Ito Ward 15(1)(4), Vs. Mumbai. (Appellant) Assessee Represented By Department Represented By Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : : : : (Respondent) Shri Pawan Choudhary, Ld. Ar Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr.) 02.07.2025 16.07.2025 Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan (J.M.): 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Appellant/Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.02.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)"], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act"] For The A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2020-21 Respectively, Wherein The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Dismissed Being Barred By Limitation & The Ld. Cit(A) Has Refused To Condone The Delay Stating That The Assessee Has Failed To Show Sufficient Cause For Condonation Of Delay. 2. Since The Facts Of All The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Exactly Same, Parties Are Same, Also The Order Of The Same Date & The Matter Involved Is Also Similar Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Disallowance Of Interest Amount Earned From Deposit Of Interest With The Cooperative Banks & Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act For The Different

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

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

Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2549/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

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

Sarnath Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Desai vs. CIT(Appeal), Piramal Chamber

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2548/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan1. Ita No. 2548/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 2549/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 2550/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2020-21) Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 59-B, Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Breach Candy, Mumbai-400 026 Pan: Aaaas3230K Ito Ward 15(1)(4), Vs. Mumbai. (Appellant) Assessee Represented By Department Represented By Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement (Respondent) Shri Pawan Choudhary, Ld. Ar Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr.) 02.07.2025 16.07.2025 Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan (J.M.): 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Appellant/Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.02.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)"], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act"] For The A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2020-21 Respectively, Wherein The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Dismissed Being Barred By Limitation & The Ld. Cit(A) Has Refused To Condone The Delay Stating That The Assessee Has Failed To Show Sufficient Cause For Condonation Of Delay. 2. Since The Facts Of All The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Exactly Same, Parties Are Same, Also The Order Of The Same Date & The Matter Involved Is Also Similar Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Disallowance Of Interest Amount Earned From Deposit Of Interest With The Cooperative Banks & Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act For The Different

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

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

Sh. Irshad Ilahi, Dehradun vs. ITO, W- 1(3), Dehradun

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

ITA 80/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Irshad Ilahi, Income Tax Officer, 96 Colli Camp, Turner Road, Ward-1(3), Clement Town, Dehradun, Vs Dehradun Uttarkhand-248001 Pan-Acmpi0814J Appellant Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Number was not linked to the Aadhar Card, electronic furnishing of the Form 35 could not be made within the time allowed under Section 249(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of the Challan Status Sheet as downloaded from the Tax Information Network(TIN) of Income

Rahul Ramesh Ektare, Thane vs. Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2886/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin M Chavan, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

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

Shobha, Tiptur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tiptur

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

ITA 152/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gokul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 69A

sufficient cause. The delay computed by the ld. CIT(A) is from the date of the order, whereas according to section 249(2)(b), the time limit for filing of appeal of 30 days commences from the date of service of the order, notice of demand. Therefore, also

A.G.T. Electronics Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2767/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2767/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 264Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग

Chattar Singh, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Mohali

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 459/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A. and Smt. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 249(2)(b)Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

since no return of income was filed. That the appeal was filed beyond the statutory time limit of 30 days under o section 249(2)(b), and no condonation application was found on record. 7. During the course of hearing, the assessee brought to our attention that the deficiency letters

Guni Govindachetty Ashokkumar, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

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

ITA 3144/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3144/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Guni Govindachetty Ashokkumar, The Income Tax Officer, 3/149/4, Emakalnatham Vill & Po Vs. Ward-1, Bargur, Krishnagiri – 635104. Krishnagiri. [Pan: Aelpa 3144A]

For Appellant: Mrs. Mathangi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144Section 249(2)(b)Section 249(3)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा

Society for Community Intervention & Research, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2087/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2087/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Society For Community Intervention & Research…....Appellant 2/2, Tiljala Road, Near No.2 Rail Gate, Park Circus Station, Kol-700046. [Pan: Aaatc4285B] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Exemption, Kolkata…..…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar & Vidhi Ladia, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha & Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.08.2024 Of The Cit(Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That An Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 27.03.2019 Was Passed By The Cpc, Bengaluru Denying Exemption U/S 11 To The Assessee On The Ground Of Non-Filing Form 10B In Time Or Before The Filing Of The Return Of Income.

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)(b)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy

M/S. Arun Excello Construction LLP, Royapettah Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2168/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2168/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Arun Excello Constructions Assistant Commissioner Of Llp, 18 Bhattad Towers, V. Income Tax, West Cott Road, Non Corporate Circle -11(1), Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. Chennai. [Pan: Aaufa-2577-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Shrenik Chordia, Ca : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. Shrenik Chordia, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 249(2)(b)Section 249(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस एस िव"ने

Future Money Sales and Marketing Pvt.Ltd, A-28, Near Bankey Bihari Tampel Rajendra Nager, Bareilly-243001, Bareilly vs. Income Tax Officer -1(2), Bareilly-New.

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

ITA 194/LKW/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriafuture Money Sales & Income Tax Officer-1(2) V. Marketing Pvt. Ltd Rampur Garden, Bareilly- A-28, Near Bankey Bihari New-243001. Tample, Rajendra Nagar, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aabcf4395H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 10 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(b)Section 249(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH

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

ITA 3230/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Iyer, CAFor Respondent: Shri AnoopHiwase,Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 249(2)(b)Section 250Section 80P(2)(c)

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

Subhashbhai Narbheram Sompura, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-3(3) Now Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 213/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ld Ito. After Clicking To All The Tab Under E Proceeding Tab The Order Was There Under The

Section 249(2)(b)

reassessment order namely 16.10.2019 and calculated a delay of 66 days without taking into account, statutory time limit of 30 days provided under section 249(2)(b) of the Act. Thus we hereby set aside the case back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide

P. Krishnamurthy, Villupuram vs. ITO, Ward-2, Villupuram

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

ITA 773/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 249(2)(b)Section 264Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ (एस एम सी) "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3366/MUM/2023[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024

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)

For Appellant: Mr. Ayush ChhajedFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 249(3)

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