“condonation of delay”

Sumati G Gupta Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 13(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 Sumati G Gupta Securities Income Tax Officer- Private Limited 13(2)(1) C/O – 2Nd Floor, Geeta Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Sion Circle, Sion East, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai- 400022 Pan: Aaacb3475H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Margav Shukla & Shri Shubham Shah, Ld. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sushil Bhagwat Shendge,Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.01.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2012- 13. 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is Delay 114 Days In Filing Of Instant Appeal. The Assessee By Filling Application For Condonation Of Delay, Along With Duly Sworn Affidavit, Has Demonstrated The Reason For The Delay To Effect That The Assessee Company Was Dissolved & Struck Off From The Register Of The Companies With Effect From 31.08.2016. However Subsequently The 2 Sumati G Gupta Securities Private Limited Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice Dated 28.03.2019 U/S 148 Of The Act, Which Resulted Into Passing The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2019 U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act & Making The Addition Of Rs.3,87,673 U/S 68 Of The Act Being Undisclosed Income.

outset it is observed that there is delay 114 days in filing of instant appeal. The assessee by filling application for condonation of delay, along with duly sworn affidavit, has demonstrated the reason for the delay to effect that the assessee company was dissolved and struck off from the Register ... thereafter the assessee immediately on 14.07.2025, filed the instant appeal, however with delay of 114 days and thus, the assessee is praying for Condonation of Delay. 3. The Id. DR though refuted the claim of the assessee but not the factual aspect mentioned above. 4. Considering the peculiar facts

Pellucid Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Pellucid Securities Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Tax Appeal, (Nfac) 301, Turf View, National Faceless Appeal 63, Dadarkar Compound, Centre – Ito Ward 7(3)(1), Vs. Tardeo, Ab-126J, Mumbai Aayakar Bhawan, Maharashtra - 400034 Churchgate, Pan: Aafcp1405L Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.10.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 183 Days In Filing This Appeal, As Pointed Out By The Registry, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed That Due To Non-Receipt Of The Impugned Order On Its Email Registered As Well As In Physical Form, The Delay Has Been Occurred, Which Was Neither Intentional Nor Malafide But Because Of The Aforesaid Reason.

aforesaid reason. 2 M/s. Pellucid Securities Private Limited 3. On the contrary, Ld. DR. refuted the claim of the Assessee qua condonation of delay. 4. Considering the delay and reasons stated by the Assessee with duly sworn affidavit, though appears to be non- convincing and therefore is not condonable, however

Shri Parin Seventilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from presenting the present appeal within the prescribed time and therefore prays your Honour to condone the delay in presenting the appeal and admit the appeal in the fairness of law. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete ... well as on merits. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr.DR) on the plea of Ld.AR of the assessee for condoning the delay submits that bench may take decision in accordance with law. On the objections of the Id AR of the assessee against validity of reasons

Geetanjali Exports, Mumbai vs. 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankargeetanjali Exports., 103, Madhupuri Shopping Centre, Vallabhbhai Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai - 400056 ............... Appellant Pan: Aaafg3712D

Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2000-01. 2 2. Alongwith the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the partner of the assessee, submitting as follows: - “a) That the order was sent on email ... aforesaid genuine reasons there has been delay in filing of this appeal, hence, 1 am making this application for condonation of delay in filing this present appeal. In the circumstances I submit and request that the delay in filing of this appeal may be condoned. The lapse on the part