“condonation of delay”

Dineshkumar Ujabhai Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS 3, Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.388 & 389/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Dineshkumar Ujabhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, At-Surajpura, Po.Songra, Tal: Tds-3, Palanpur, Banaskantha, Gujarat, Ahmedabad India Residential Address: B-303, Saroj Park, Opp. Gali Tower, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajbpp4111H (Appellant) (Respondent)

barred by limitation by eighteen (18) days. The Ld. ITA.388 & 389/SRT/2022/AY.2015-16 Dineshkumar Ujabhai Patel Counsel for the assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued with these minor delays have occurred due to non-receipt of order of ld CIT(A) on time ... condoned. 3. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that assessee has not explained the sufficient reasons to condone the delay, therefore the delay should not be condoned in both these

Dineshkumar Ujabhai Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS 3, Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.388 & 389/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Dineshkumar Ujabhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, At-Surajpura, Po.Songra, Tal: Tds-3, Palanpur, Banaskantha, Gujarat, Ahmedabad India Residential Address: B-303, Saroj Park, Opp. Gali Tower, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajbpp4111H (Appellant) (Respondent)

barred by limitation by eighteen (18) days. The Ld. ITA.388 & 389/SRT/2022/AY.2015-16 Dineshkumar Ujabhai Patel Counsel for the assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued with these minor delays have occurred due to non-receipt of order of ld CIT(A) on time ... condoned. 3. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that assessee has not explained the sufficient reasons to condone the delay, therefore the delay should not be condoned in both these

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the NFAC, the appellant ... levied prior to insertion of provisions of section 200A of the Act. It is argued that the NFAC ought to have condoned the delay, inasmuch as, the appellant had shown the sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. In support of this proposition, the ld. AR relied upon

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the NFAC, the appellant ... levied prior to insertion of provisions of section 200A of the Act. It is argued that the NFAC ought to have condoned the delay, inasmuch as, the appellant had shown the sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. In support of this proposition, the ld. AR relied upon

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the NFAC, the appellant ... levied prior to insertion of provisions of section 200A of the Act. It is argued that the NFAC ought to have condoned the delay, inasmuch as, the appellant had shown the sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. In support of this proposition, the ld. AR relied upon

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the NFAC, the appellant ... levied prior to insertion of provisions of section 200A of the Act. It is argued that the NFAC ought to have condoned the delay, inasmuch as, the appellant had shown the sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. In support of this proposition, the ld. AR relied upon

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the NFAC, the appellant ... levied prior to insertion of provisions of section 200A of the Act. It is argued that the NFAC ought to have condoned the delay, inasmuch as, the appellant had shown the sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. In support of this proposition, the ld. AR relied upon

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the NFAC, the appellant ... levied prior to insertion of provisions of section 200A of the Act. It is argued that the NFAC ought to have condoned the delay, inasmuch as, the appellant had shown the sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. In support of this proposition, the ld. AR relied upon

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the NFAC, the appellant ... levied prior to insertion of provisions of section 200A of the Act. It is argued that the NFAC ought to have condoned the delay, inasmuch as, the appellant had shown the sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. In support of this proposition, the ld. AR relied upon

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the NFAC, the appellant ... levied prior to insertion of provisions of section 200A of the Act. It is argued that the NFAC ought to have condoned the delay, inasmuch as, the appellant had shown the sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. In support of this proposition, the ld. AR relied upon

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the NFAC, the appellant ... levied prior to insertion of provisions of section 200A of the Act. It is argued that the NFAC ought to have condoned the delay, inasmuch as, the appellant had shown the sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. In support of this proposition, the ld. AR relied upon

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee in filing the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the NFAC, the appellant ... levied prior to insertion of provisions of section 200A of the Act. It is argued that the NFAC ought to have condoned the delay, inasmuch as, the appellant had shown the sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. In support of this proposition, the ld. AR relied upon

Chhattisgarh Rajya Open School, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption Circle, Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Chhattisgarh Rajya Open School Madhyamik Siksha Mandal, Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaagc0179F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

registration, tax liability is fastened even though they may otherwise be eligible for exemption and fulfil other substantive conditions. However, the power of condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order to provide relief to such trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, section

Aghorpeeth Jan Sewa Abhed Ashram, Akaltara, Janjgir-Champa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 239/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Aghorpeeth Jan Sewa Abhed Ashram Pondidilha Akaltara, Janjgir, Champa (C.G.)-495 549 Pan : Aafta1866R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

assessee in the processing and income was determined at Rs.72,53,229/-. 2 The assessee filed application before Id. CIT (Exemption) for condonation of delay in tiling Form 10B. Vide order dated 19.07.2023, Id. CIT (Exemption) condoned the delay in filing Form 10B. We are enclosing herewith a copy

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Lawan, Baloda Bazar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhatapara, Baloda Bazar

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

lackadaisical approach on its part. The Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) did not raise any objection to the seeking of condonation of delay by the respective assessee-appellants. After going through the respective applications, I am satisfied with the reasons leading to the delay and condone the same

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Lawan, Baloda Bazar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhatapara, Baloda Bazar

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

lackadaisical approach on its part. The Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) did not raise any objection to the seeking of condonation of delay by the respective assessee-appellants. After going through the respective applications, I am satisfied with the reasons leading to the delay and condone the same

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Lawan, Baloda Bazar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhatapara, Baloda Bazar

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

lackadaisical approach on its part. The Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) did not raise any objection to the seeking of condonation of delay by the respective assessee-appellants. After going through the respective applications, I am satisfied with the reasons leading to the delay and condone the same

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Lawan, Baloda Bazar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhatapara, Baloda Bazar

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

lackadaisical approach on its part. The Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) did not raise any objection to the seeking of condonation of delay by the respective assessee-appellants. After going through the respective applications, I am satisfied with the reasons leading to the delay and condone the same