“condonation of delay”

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer TDS-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

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

Head Office on 26.06.2014 to deal with die case with the help of an advocate. However, while filing the reasons for condonation of delay, the assessee has ignored to mention the advice given by the Head Office vide letter dated 26.06.2014. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... Rewa Coalfield AIR 1962 SC 351 had held that while seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer TDS-1`, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

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

Head Office on 26.06.2014 to deal with die case with the help of an advocate. However, while filing the reasons for condonation of delay, the assessee has ignored to mention the advice given by the Head Office vide letter dated 26.06.2014. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... Rewa Coalfield AIR 1962 SC 351 had held that while seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay

Singuluri Sai Venkata Nagar Srivani, West Godavari vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bhimavaram

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.80/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt.Singuluri Sai Venkata Nagar Vs. Income Tax Officer Srivani Ward-2 D.No.2-63/1, Ajjamuru Bhimavaram Near Cheruvu Gattu Akiveedu Mandal West Godavari [Pan : Bmmpa9864K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sankar Pandi, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023

Hearing : 05.01.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : Condonation of Delay : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rajahmahendravaram in ITA No.10215/2015-16/CIT(A)/RJY dated ... Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 with the delay of 824 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay, submitting that the delay in 2 I.T.A. No.80/Viz/2022, A.Y.2011-12 Smt.Singuluri Sai Venkata Nagar Srivani, Ajjamuru filing the appeal was due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, therefore

Palla Madhusudana Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Visakhapatnam

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.15/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Palla Madhusudana Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Door No.14-6-7, Ramajogipeta Ward-1(2) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bhrpp0382F] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri N.Ravi Babu, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, [Cit(A)]-6, Hyderabad In Appeal No.10357/2018-19/A3 Cit(A)-6 Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Carrying On Business In The Sale Of Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2011-12 On 25.09.2011, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,28,950/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny, Accordingly

sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within the said period. As such the CIT(A) is vested with the power of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that in the instant case, though the assessee has furnished certain grounds for delay in filing ... appeal, he failed to file a formal petition for condonation of delay. Similarly, the assessee has not filed any affidavit along with supporting documentary evidence demonstrating ‘sufficient cause’ for 791 days delay in filing the appeal. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that the assessee, even after lapse of 29 months

Shri Nishant Kumar Tiwari, Dewas vs. The ITO -1, Dewas

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. There is 260 days delay in preferring the appeal before us. An application for condonation of delay was also filed on 30.05.2022 wherefrom it appears that the assessee is handicapped and suffering from heamophillia disease. Under these circumstances, the matter has been requested to taken ... Civil Hospital, Kannod in the District of Dewas from 13.07.2021 to 20.07.2021. The certificate whereof is also annexed to this application for condonation of delay. In fact, the Appellate order was received by the assessee on 16.07.2021 but due to prolonged lockdown as the outcome of Covid-19, the appeal

Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kendrapada vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.163/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Vs Pr.Cit, Cuttack Bank Ltd., College Square, Tinimuhani, Kendrapara-754211 Pan No. :Aaatk 8347 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Dated 24.03.2020, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026884702(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 8 Days. The Assessee Through Its Secretary Has Filed An Application Dated 13.07.2020 Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, To Which Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object. In View Of The Above, Delay Of 8 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Heard Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 20.11.2017. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was A Limited Scrutiny

assessee is barred by 8 days. The assessee through its Secretary has filed an application dated 13.07.2020 stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, to which ld. CIT-DR did not object. In view of the above, delay of 8 days in filing the present appeal is condoned

The ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S. Manish Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

these appeals, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Condonation of Delay 2. The learned CIT-DR submitted that due to office procedure for filing appeal, the appeal against the order of learned CIT-3, Bhopal dated

The ACIT, Central-1, Indore vs. M/S. Manish Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

these appeals, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Condonation of Delay 2. The learned CIT-DR submitted that due to office procedure for filing appeal, the appeal against the order of learned CIT-3, Bhopal dated

Shri Hari Kishan Goyal, Indore vs. Pr CIT-2, Indore

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Shri Hari Kishan Goyal, Indore

observed that the appeal is time barred by 189 days. In this respect, the counsel for the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay and gave a table stating that the appeal could not be filed in time since the assessee was suffering from multiple diseases. The tabular account ... going on. Looking into the facts and circumstances causing the delay in filing the appeal, in the interest of justice, we hereby condone the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee since the same was caused due I.T.A No. 157/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 4 Shri Hari Kishan

Prashant R. Mamlatdarna, Bharuch vs. ITO-Ward-1(5), Bharuch

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.242/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Prashant R Mamlatdarna Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), 6, Pritam Society No.1 Kasak, 1St Floor, Harkunj Building, Vs. Bharuch-392001 Above Bank Of Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adepm 4216 H (Appellant ) (Respondent)

assessee is barred by limitation by 867 days. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted an affidavit and prayed before the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of said affidavit, is reproduced below: “(1) I hold PAN ADEPM 4216 H having jurisdiction with Income Tax Office, Ward ... this affidavit, e-stamp bearing e-certificate No. IN-GJ16133202380952U has been used.” 3. Based on the contents of affidavit for condonation of delay, Ld. counsel argued that most of the period of delay is attributable to the period of Covid-19, and effective delay is only 85 days. Therefore

Shri Dalubhai R.Chauhan, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer(International Taxation), Surat

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.141/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Shri Dalubhai Raghabhai Chauhan Income Tax Officer, International 201, Swastik Heights, B/H Terapanth Taxation, Anavil Business Centre, Vs. Bhavan, City Light Road, Surat- Adajan, Surat-395002 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Atzpc 0952 H (Assessee) (Respondent)

assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15, is barred by limitation by 96 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The reasons of delay mentioned in the petition for condonation of delay, are reproduced below: “1. In my case, ld. CIT(A)-13, Ahmedabad ... that although time limit for filing appeal has expired, the appeal should be filed immediately against the above appellate order & request for condonation of delay should be filed considering above facts. Thus, delay in filing of appeal is due to above bona fide reasons only. 4. I apologize for default

Rabindranath Mohanty, Jagatpur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.20/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Rabindranath Mohanty, Vs Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Gopabandhu Nagar, Jagatpur, Cuttack Pan No. :Afcpm 0063 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation. In this regard, ld. AR has filed an application along with the affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein the sufficient reasons for delay in filing the present appeal. Ld. CIT-DR also did not object to the submission ... view of the above, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard finally. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is a manufacturer of polythene products and in truck running business. The return filed by 2 the assessee came

Manav Rachna Education Society, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption), Bhopal

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 01/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Manav Rachana Education Society, A-1, Pushpak Apartments, Opp. Government School, Chhotapara, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aaaac6228R . ......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

That the Ld. CIT by issuing the detailed questionnaire so as to examine the merits of the case must be deemed to have condoned the delay in filing the application for approval under the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act hence, the Ld. CIT has grossly erred ... Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Limited AIR 1996 SC 3285 had held that where there is no provision to empower the statutory authority to condone the delay, than the authority concerned cannot condone the same. The observations of the Hon’ble Court in Paragraphs No. 15 & 16 worth to note, read

Shyam Sunder Agrawal, Janjgir-Champa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Janjgir-Champa, Janjgir-Champa

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.170, 171 & 172/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Shyam Sundar Agrawal Prop. Of M/S. Vishnu Shallac Factory, Baradwar Road, Sakti, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Pan : Aegpa8337L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

callous approach and without giving any cogent reason delayed the filing of the appeals before him, the CIT(Appeals) had declined to condone the delay of 190 days that was involved in the appeals of the assessee before him. The Ld. AR could not controvert before me the conduct ... assessee’s appeal for A.Y.2010-11 in ITA No.60/RPR/2017, dated 23.11.2022, wherein involving more or less identical facts the Tribunal had declined to condone the delay of 339 days as was involved in the said appeal. 4. On a careful perusal of the orders of the lower authorities and the material

Shyam Sunder Agrawal, Janjgir-Champa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Janjgir-Champa, Janjgir-Champa

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.170, 171 & 172/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Shyam Sundar Agrawal Prop. Of M/S. Vishnu Shallac Factory, Baradwar Road, Sakti, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Pan : Aegpa8337L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

callous approach and without giving any cogent reason delayed the filing of the appeals before him, the CIT(Appeals) had declined to condone the delay of 190 days that was involved in the appeals of the assessee before him. The Ld. AR could not controvert before me the conduct ... assessee’s appeal for A.Y.2010-11 in ITA No.60/RPR/2017, dated 23.11.2022, wherein involving more or less identical facts the Tribunal had declined to condone the delay of 339 days as was involved in the said appeal. 4. On a careful perusal of the orders of the lower authorities and the material

Shyam Sunder Agrawal, Janjgir-Champa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Janjgir-Champa, Janjgir-Champa

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.170, 171 & 172/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Shyam Sundar Agrawal Prop. Of M/S. Vishnu Shallac Factory, Baradwar Road, Sakti, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Pan : Aegpa8337L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

callous approach and without giving any cogent reason delayed the filing of the appeals before him, the CIT(Appeals) had declined to condone the delay of 190 days that was involved in the appeals of the assessee before him. The Ld. AR could not controvert before me the conduct ... assessee’s appeal for A.Y.2010-11 in ITA No.60/RPR/2017, dated 23.11.2022, wherein involving more or less identical facts the Tribunal had declined to condone the delay of 339 days as was involved in the said appeal. 4. On a careful perusal of the orders of the lower authorities and the material