“condonation of delay”

Shri. Hajaram P Purohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 36, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

these appeals filed before us are delayed by as much as 1243 and 1498 days. The assessee has filed separate application seeking condonation of delay with each of these appeals, wherein assessee has submitted that he is a small trader and a man of small means. The assessee has made ... following submissions, in the aforesaid applications, in support of its prayer for condonation of delay: “a. I am a small trader and a man of small means. It was out of the need to survive and make two ends meet that I had to undertake the Accommodation entries route, since

Shri. Hajaram P Purohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 36, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

these appeals filed before us are delayed by as much as 1243 and 1498 days. The assessee has filed separate application seeking condonation of delay with each of these appeals, wherein assessee has submitted that he is a small trader and a man of small means. The assessee has made ... following submissions, in the aforesaid applications, in support of its prayer for condonation of delay: “a. I am a small trader and a man of small means. It was out of the need to survive and make two ends meet that I had to undertake the Accommodation entries route, since

Shri. Hajaram P Purohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 36, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

these appeals filed before us are delayed by as much as 1243 and 1498 days. The assessee has filed separate application seeking condonation of delay with each of these appeals, wherein assessee has submitted that he is a small trader and a man of small means. The assessee has made ... following submissions, in the aforesaid applications, in support of its prayer for condonation of delay: “a. I am a small trader and a man of small means. It was out of the need to survive and make two ends meet that I had to undertake the Accommodation entries route, since

M/S. Jds Ventures India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10 (2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Jds Ventures India Limited Income Tax Officer – 10(2)(1) V. Office No. 4, Bharat Photo House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 547, Kalbadevi Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aaeca1485E Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri N.R. Aggarwal Revenue Represented By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

filed by the assessee with a delay of 835 days and assessee also filed an affidavit in this regard and prayed for condonation of delay. In the affidavit assessee has submitted as under: - “1. That the Appellant had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal ... That the deponent thereafter immediately filed appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal on 13.09.2021. 11. Ld. DR objected for the condonation of delay and however, he has not filed any submissions against the affidavit and the facts described in the above affidavit. 12. Considered the submissions of both parties

Krishna Pandurang Kobnak, Thane vs. CIT Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre

The appeal is allowed

which was rejected by CPC on the same day. The CIT(A) was of the view that there was no merit in condonation of delay, wherein appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed. The assessee had filed appeals against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, hence

Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Additional CIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

were sent to the chartered accountant and appeals were filed on 1stMarch 2018. It was stated that this is a fresh reason for condonation of delay. The learned Authorized Representative reiterated the same facts. 013. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently objected the same. 014. As we find that the delay ... minimal and further there is sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay. ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year 2000-01 015. The learned Authorized Representative first submitted that assessee has filed the additional ground of appeal stating

Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Additional CIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

were sent to the chartered accountant and appeals were filed on 1stMarch 2018. It was stated that this is a fresh reason for condonation of delay. The learned Authorized Representative reiterated the same facts. 013. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently objected the same. 014. As we find that the delay ... minimal and further there is sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay. ITA Nos.1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 Triumph Securities ltd; Assessment Year 2000-01 015. The learned Authorized Representative first submitted that assessee has filed the additional ground of appeal stating

Saharsh Laxmiratan Daga, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

under:- “1. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals)-NFAC had rejected the appellant’s application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal as the appellant was not aware that appeal was to be filed compulsory through electronic filing though manual appeal was filed ... filed on dated 16.01.2019 and rejected the appeal on reason that the filing of appeal is in delay withoutconsidering the petition of assesseefor condonation of delay. The assessee had explained the reason of delay during the appeal proceeding. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the plea of assessee & treated the prayer

Hatkesh Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 is allowed

Bench: Shripavankumargadale, Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhhatkesh Co-Operative Vs. Income Tax Officer-25 Housing Society Ltd. (2) (4) 2Nd Floor, 51, Jain Co- Kautilyabhavan, Op Hsgsoc, N.S. Road Bandrakurla Complex, 11, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Bandra East Parle (W) Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400049 Pan No.Aaalh0017Q Appellant Respondent

Mumbai. other sources and consequently erred in not allowing expenses claimed by the assessee. " 3. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay of 34 days in filing of the present appeal on the ground that Mr. GajananRahate an employee of the society forwarded the CIT(A) order ... Acquisition V. Mst, Katiji& others (1987) 167 1TR 471{SC). Having heard the rival submissions, we allowed the application of the assessee and condoned the delay in the interest of justice and permitted the Ld. Counsel to argue the case on merits. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted

Royal Palms Property Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT-13(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dy. Cit-13(3)(1) Royal Palms Property Pvt. R No. 229, Aayakar Ltd. Survey No. 169 Aarey Bhavan, M.K. Road, Milk Colony Goregoan (E) Vs. Mumbai-400 065 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaccr3216L Assessee By : Sh. Rohan Deshpande Revenue By : Sh. Ujjawal Chavan,Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2022

cause for the delay and therefore, same may be condone. 7. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently objected to the affidavit of assessee for condonation of delay. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and find that the appeal of the assessee is delay on account of inadvertent omission ... merit, the technicalities should be ignored if there not malafide and issue should be decided on the merits of the case. Therefore, the condone the delay in filing of the appeal. 9. The learned authorized representative reiterated the statement made before the lower authorities and learned DR relied upon

Bhavesh Ghanshyam Advani, Mumbai vs. CIT(Intl Tax)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

lead case. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The assessee prays before Your Honour to allow the Condonation of delay application dated 22.09.2016 as filed by the assessee before the Learned Commissioner of income Tax (Intl. Taxation)-1, which has been rejected by the Learned Commissioner ... facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application before Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Mumbai dated 22.09.2016 seeking condonation of delay in filing tax returns for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13. After receipt of the application by assessee, a report was called from

Kaushal Ishwar Ghanshani, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

assessee knowledge only when ITO-TDS raised demand for various years. Accordingly, assessee filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with the condonation of delay for seeking relief. 7. However, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the plea of the assessee and he rejected the condonation application and also observed that the assessee ... brought on record any sufficient cause neither for condonation of delay nor for the levy of penalty u/s. 234E of the Act. Therefore, he 4 ITA NOs. 2057, 2058, 2059 & 2060/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20) Kaushal Ishwar Ghanshani dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on both the counts