“condonation of delay”

M/S Pranay Traders and Suppliers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 13(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No. 5400/MUM/2024\nAssessment Year: 2016-17\n\nPranay Traders and Suppliers\nPvt. Ltd.,\n63, Deccan Court, S.V. Road,\nBandra West,\nMumbai – 400 050\n(PAN : AAGCP5928D)\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nAssistant Commissioner of\nIncome-tax,\nCircle 13(1)(2),\nMumbai\n(Respondent)\n\nPresent for:\nAssessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate\nRevenue : Shri Krishna Kumar – Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing : 28.11.2024\nDate of Pronoun

There is a delay of 1 day as noted by the Registry in filing this\nappeal before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay\nis placed on record. Having gone through the same, we condone the\nsaid delay and take up the matter for adjudication.\n\n3. Brief

Minakshi Singh, Meerut vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 35(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No. 6648/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12

opportunity to the assessee to furnish a detailed explanation for the delay, passed the impugned order by dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that, this caused great injustice and prejudice to the assessee, as the delay in filing the appeal before ... refer to the decision of Hon’ble Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd. dated 25.6.2018, condoned the delay of 2819 days by observing as follows: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay

Abhishek Sanjeev Nadgeri, Navi Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Navi Mumbai

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Ld.DR, though objected to condition of delay, however could not controvert the submissions of the assessee in the application filed for condoning the delay. I have peruced the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records placed before this Tribunal. 6 ITA No. 4499/Mum/2024 ... Abhishek Sanjeev Nadgeri 5. It is necessary to analyse whether the reason stated by the assessee to seek condonation of delay before Tribunal is sufficient to condone the delay and whether, there exists sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal before Tribunal, within the period of limitation under the statute

Sandhya Sital Sangtani, Navi Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

Bench: Br Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhansandhya Sital Sangtani Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) 302, Anand Nagar Sec 17, Ito 28(3)(1), Vashi, Vashi Rly Stn, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aadpk5756E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar-Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 By Nfac Delhi Mumbai [In Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [In Short “The Act”], Vide This Impugned Order By Learned Cit(A) For A.Y. 2018- 19, Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed On 2 Sandhya Sital Sangtani

wherein the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on 2 Sandhya Sital Sangtani account of delay and learned CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay for 359 days in filing the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the appeal are that the assessee Sandhya Sital Sangtani has sold ... along with penalty notice issued therein. The said order of the Ld.AO was challenged by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) seeking condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) of 3 Sandhya Sital Sangtani 359 days. Vide impugned order the Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay stating

Aarti Sudarshan Soni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-30(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

There is a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee in this regard filed a petition for condonation of delay stating that due to bereavement in the family, the assessee could not file the appeal in time. Having heard both the parties and perused ... Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has discharged

Shree Spanan Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-CPC Bangaluru, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

days which is beyond the control of assessee due to outbreak of covid pandemic. Therefore, the lower appellate authority has declined to condone the delay and dismissed appeal and upheld the order of AO. 3. Aggrieved by the order of lower appellate authority, the assessee preferred the appeal before ... whether in the given facts and circumstances, for the relevant period delay having occurred during the covid pandemic, the assessee is entitled to condonation of delay in filing the ITR alongwith audit report in Form 10B. 5. Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that it was beyond