“condonation of delay”

Shri Sumit Gahlot, Bhilwara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad176/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) Vs Shri Sumit Gahlot, The Ito House No.22, Ganesh Ward-1, Colony, Gulpura, Bhilwara Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bqapg9853L

Ajmer dated 05/06/2018 on following amongst other grounds each of which are without prejudice to any other :- 1.0 A humble prayer is condone the delay of 169 days in filing of the appeal being caused under the bonafide reasons of compelling circumstances beyond my control of the appellant ... Bench noted that there is delay 169 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that his aged father being patient of cancer was hospitalized in Bhagwan Mahaveer 3 ITA 176/JP/2019 SHRI SUMIT GEHLOT, BHILWARA

Noble Educational Society, Bhilwara vs. ITO (Exemtion), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad168/Jodh/2018 (Assessment Year- 2008-09) Vs Noble Educational Society, The Ito Kuwada Road Behind Sophia (Exemption), School, Suwana Road, Ajmer Bhilwara-311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatn5198G

been presented within 30 days from the date of service of notice of demand. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay dated 04-05-2016 stating as under:- ‘’Most respectfully, the petitioner submis as under:- 4 NOBLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS ITO, (EXEMPTION) AJMER 1. That the assessment

Dinaben Dilipkumar Patel, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari

In the result, ground related to the credit entry of Rs

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

order was passed on 04/10/2017, however, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 02/12/2019. The assessee also filed application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The delay was condoned on the ground that the assessee is a non- resident, residing

Shree Salabatpura Urban Co-Op[. Credit Society Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shree Salabatpura Urban Co. Op. D.C.I.T. Credit Society Limited, Circle-2(1)(1), Vs. 4/2424, Salabatpura Main Road, Surat. Salabatpura, Surat-395003. Pan No. Aaaas 3509 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

10/03/2023, thus, there is delay of about 152 days in fling the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit of secretary of assessee society. In the application, the assessee stated that the Secretary of assessee society Shri Shashikant Harilal Waghela was looking ... condoned. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue opposed the plea of condonation of delay. The ld. Sr. DR submits that the application for condonation of delay does not disclose the proper reason for condoning such delay. The delay is very

Dinaben Dilipkumar Patel, Na vs. Asrivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari

In the result, ground related to the credit entry of Rs

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

order was passed on 04/10/2017, however, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 02/12/2019. The assessee also filed application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The delay was condoned on the ground that the assessee is a non- resident, residing

Vijay Naginbhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Vijay Naginbhai Patel, I.T.O., 52, Hari Har Society, Katargam Main Ward 3(2)(4), Vs. Road, Surat-395004. Surat. Pan No. Abrpp 3832 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

filing the present appeal. A defect memo was issued to the assessee vide defect memo dated 03/01/2019. No application or affidavit for condonation of delay was filed either at the time of filing of appeal or subsequently on receipt of defect memo. Notice of hearing of appeal was served ... filed any submissions or evidence to substantiate both the grounds of appeal, therefore, the assessee does not deserve any relief either on condonation of delay or on merit. 8. I have considered the submission of ld. Sr. DR for the revenue and perused the material on record

Mithila Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradmithila Drugs Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, F-70, Road No.2, Circle-1, 102A, Mewar Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Sub Madri, Udaipur-313003. City Centre, Savina, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaccm6767B Assessee By None (W/S) Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/03/2023 Date Of 23/03/2023 Pronouncement

Competent Authority u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. It is stated that the facts are identical and the petition for condonation of delay qua the year under consideration is pending for adjudication before the Competent Authority. Therefore, looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case ... afresh and allow carry forward business loss relating to the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 where the Competent Authority has allowed condonation of delay in filing the return of income. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated herein above. 10. In the result

Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Dasuya

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

assessment order in compliance to 263 order of the PCIT. The 4 Rajinder Kaur v. ITO Ld. AR filed a written application for condonation of delay with the support of affidavit of the appellant assesse, as under: “1. That applicant has filed appeal against order ... impression that the consequential order of the Assessing Officer only required to be challenged and not the order of the Revisional Authority. While condoning the delay Honorable High Court has applied the principles laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. Krishnamurthy

Shri Arshad Mohd Malik, Jammu vs. Inmcvome Tax Officer Ward 2 (4), Udhampur

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

amend and add to substitute any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 2. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 239 days wherein, assessee has stated that delay due to the assessee’s brother was in serious condition on account of liver ailments ... month of January and he could not get the notice. The ld. Sr. DR has not made any strong objection for condoning the delay of 239 days. Therefore, the delay of 239 days is condoned. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee was assessed

Rahul Shukla, Durg vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.258/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rahul Shukla C/O. Rakesh Enterprises, G.E. Road, Kumhari, Durg-491 001 Pan : Dkips6951K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Nfac, Delhi ……""यथ" / Respondent

fairness may be condoned. 2.1 The Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) did not raise any objection to the seeking of condonation of delay by the assessee appellant. 2.2. I have given a thoughtful consideration and find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the delay in filing

M/S. S. K. Industries, Junagadh vs. The DCIT (CPC), Bangalore

Bench: Ld. Nfac. As The Assessee Has Not Explained The Delay, The Delay Was Not Condoned & The Appeal Was Dismissed Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case.

submitted before NFAC on merits of the case, which was not considered by Ld. NFAC, but dismissed the appeal on the point of condonation of delay. Thus the Ld. Counsel requested to set aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. NFAC by condoning the delay and direct ... dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. Shri B.D. Gupta Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue has no serious objection in condoning the delay of 12 days in filing the above appeal and set aside the matter before Ld. NFAC for deciding the matter on merits. 4. Recording

Shri Chetankumar Pragjibhai Rabadiya, Morbi vs. ITO Ward 1, Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un- admitted

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Shri Chetankumar Pragjibhai Vs. Ito, Ward-1 Rabadiya Morbi. 115-Umiya Plot Vistar A/P : S. Sanala, Morbi. Pan : Alupr 8308 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-3, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 29.11.2019 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2011-12. 2. At The Time Of Hearing None Came Present On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Service Of Notice Nor Any Application Seeking Adjournment Was Filed Before Us. Even In The Past When The Appeal Was Listed For Hearing On Four Occasions, Twice An Application Seeking Adjournment Was Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee By His 2

intentional or with any malafide intent but due to my adverse financial circumstances.” 4. The learned DR, objected to the plea for condonation of delay for the aforestated reasons, pointing out that there was no plausible reason for the condonation of delay in this case, and that ... compliant and uncooperative attitude of the assessee before us deserved no leniency in the matter of condonation of delay. 5. A perusal of the above application shows that the reasons narrated therein for the delay are vague, general and totally unsubstantiated. The assessee had cited compelling adverse situation

Sheetal Kaushal, Bhopal vs. The ITO 5(2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member)

delay of 93 days in filing the present appeal. The assesee has filed an application/affidavit explaining the cause of delay and seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. I have heard the Learned AR as well as Learned DR and considered the reasons explained in the application for condonation ... available on e-portal of the Department, she took immediate steps for filing the present appeal. The Learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee was negligent about filing of the present appeal within the period of limitation and cannot take an excuse

Tarit F. Das, Bharuch vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.1, Bharuch

In the result this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Tarit F Das, A.C.I.T., Aaa-49, Shreeji Sadan Bungalows, Circle-1, Vs. Swaminarayan Mandir Road, Bharuch. Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch. Pan No. Acgpd 8543 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

02/06/2021. Thus, there is delay of 275 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with affidavit of assessee. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the impugned order was passed on 14/07/2020