“condonation of delay”

Intelenet Global Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2009-10

direct the assessee to file appeal in electronic form as per Income Tax Rules, 1962 framed in this regard along with request for condonation of delay, which shall be considered in accordance with law and appeal shall be decided on merit. This appeal filed manually shall be treated as infructuous

Universal Energies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 18(1), New Delhi

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

raised before him and from pages 23 to 24 in paras 4.2 and 4.3 the Ld. Commissioner carries out a discussion on the Condonation of Delay application available on record, wherein the delay of four months in the filing of the appeal was being considered vide paras 4.4 to para ... considered by the Courts in the decisions cited in the order the Ld. Commissioner has concluded that there is no ground for condonation of delay. We find that the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue that the conclusion is not a mechanical conclusion and is a reasoned conclusion does

Treta E Technologies Company Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-25(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Raoआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9734/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Treta E Technologies Company Pvt. Ltd. Acit Ca M.R. Sahu, M Sahu & Associates, Ca Vs. Circle 25(2) H.No. 651, Ff, Sector-10A, Room No. 196A, Near Meenakshi Public School, C.R. Building, Gurgaon, Haryana. New Delhi. Pan No. Aadct1733B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

There is a delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by an Affidavit. 2. We have heard the Ld. AR as well as the Ld. DR on condonation of delay and carefully perused the contents ... presenting the appeal within the limitation period. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - Treta E Technologies Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT./ I.T.A.No

Uttam Air Products Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Uttam Air Products Pvt. Vs. Dict Cpc Ltd., 38, Rajender Park, Banglore New Delhi – 110060 Pan : Aaacu 0033 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Priyansh Jain, C.A. Revenue By Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi Dated 22.09.2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

facts in not condoning delay of 15 days in filing of appeal and outrightly rejecting the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay without considering its merits, more so, when assessee had a bonafide and genuine reasons explaining the delay. 3. That having regard to the facts ... assessee has raised various grounds in appeal but he would like to argue on Ground No.2 which is with respect to non- condonation of delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A). 5. Before me, Learned AR submitted that intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 05.11.2019 passed

Israr Ahmed, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-39(3), New Delhi

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya(Through Video Conferencing)

assessee. The assessee is directed to present himself before the CIT(A) and file necessary details / documents and also seek for the condonation of delay in filing the appeals, if any. 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 7. Decision announced

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Garg Acrylics Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the ld

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

file appeal for assessment year 2009-10, we give liberty to him to file such appeal with a proper request for condonation of delay. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the ld. Assessing Officer is dismissed, as not maintainable. Order pronounced in the open court on : 14/09/2021. (SUCHITRA

M/S Jay Polychem (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, both the appeals filed are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

make an application for recall of this order by filing corrected Form No. 36 or to file the fresh appeals with the condonation of delay request. Accordingly, both the appeals filed are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on : 13/09/2021. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated

Kalpna Mukesh Doshi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-50(3), New Delhi

In the result, the above captioned appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

brevity. 3. The common grievance which needs to be adjudicated relates to the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) without condoning the delay. 4. We have carefully perused the order of the CIT(A) we find that according to the CIT(A) there was a delay in filing ... firm belief that there was a delay in filing the appeals and the assessee has not sought condonation for delay in filing of appeal hence, the appeal was dismissed. 6. We are of the considered view that even if there was some confusion in respect of the service

Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut vs. ITO(TDS & Survey), Meerut

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

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing) Chaudhary Charan Singh Vs. Ito (Tds & Survey) University Meerut C/O Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Aaagc 0339 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Assessment Years 2009-10. 2. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That CIT(A) is in error not condone the delay which was due to the counsel of the assessee, who suffered spinal injury for 2 period more than six months and finally operated therefore, order passed ... Meerut to refuse condone the delay is against the principle of natural justice. 2. That the AO has pointed out short payment without considering the facts that deduce are assessed to tax and filing their income tax return. Therefore, any short payment he has paid

Saurabh Singla, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 36(4), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Saurabh Singla, Vs Ito, K-2, Second Floor, Model Town-Ii, Ward-36(4), New Delhi-110009. New Delhi. Pan-Amops7206A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Suresh K.Gupta, Ca Respondent By Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2021

appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing of the appeal. Undisputedly, the assessee had not filed any application seeking condonation of delay before Ld.CIT(A). The contention before Ld.CIT(A) was two folds-Firstly, that the notice was not received by the assessee. We find that ... fact that the assessee was undergoing medical treatment. We find that Ld.CIT(A) ought to have given opportunity for filing application seeking condonation of delay and after filing of such application, Ld.CIT(A) should have considered it sympathetically. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal

DCIT, Circle- 22(1), New Delhi vs. Samtel Color Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is late by 39 days. Though the learned assessing officer has moved the application for condonation of delay by letter dated 19/4/2018, but because of the reason that the respondent assessee has already been Under liquidation, the appeal should have been filed

Jagdish Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Ghaziabad

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad, for assessment year 2008-09 raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1 ‘Rejecting Condonation of Delay without verifying truthness” i. The CIT (A) Ghaziabad erred in law on facts in rejecting the application for ‘Condonation of Delay” as the delay ... wrong interpretation of law and facts on the part of the previous counsel of the Appellant. ii. The CIT (A) Ghaziabad erred in ‘Condonation of Delay” whereas the appellant has filed delay condoned Application dt. 20.12.2017 along-with Affidavit solemnly affirmed on 2.01.2018 filed with prescribed Appeal memo on Form

Pelicon Finance and Leasing Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2015-16 Pelicon Finance & Leasing Ltd., Vs Acit, 564, I.P.No.2/59, Af/F, Bhim Gali Central Circle-32, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi. Delhi-110032. Pan-Aadpc2968C Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2021

raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the facts and circumstances of the case Assessment order of the Ld.AO and dismiss petition of condonation of delay as non- maintainable of CIT(A) is bad in law. 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case ... justified in dismiss petition of condonation of delay filing appeal (12 days) as non-maintainable without consider the facts evidence submission made by appellant in correct prospective. 3. On the fact and circumstances of the case the LD CIT(A) was dismiss appeal as non-maintainable against the principal

Perfect Texfeb Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 32, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2015-16 Perfect Texfeb Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, 564, I.P.No.2/59, Af/F, Bhim Gali Central Circle-32, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi. Delhi-110032. Pan-Aaecp9812E Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh.Govind Singhal, Sr.Dr & Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2021

raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the facts and circumstances of the case Assessment order of then Ld.AO and dismiss petition of condonation of delay as non- maintainable of CIT(A) is bad in law. 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case ... justified in dismiss petition of condonation of delay filing appeal (12 days) as non-maintainable without consider the facts evidence submission made by appellant in correct prospective. 3. On the fact and circumstances of the case the LD CIT(A) was dismiss appeal as non-maintainable against the principal

Worldlink Telecom Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 32, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2015-16 Worldlink Telecom Ltd., Vs Acit, 3198/15, 4Th Floor, Gali No.1, Central Circle-32, Sangatrashan Paharganj, New Delhi. New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacw3782A Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2021

raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the facts and circumstances of the case Assessment order of the Ld.AO and dismiss petition of condonation of delay as non- maintainable of CIT(A) is bad in law. 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case ... justified in dismiss petition of condonation of delay filing appeal (11 days) as non-maintainable without consider the facts evidence submission made by appellant in correct prospective. 3. On the fact and circumstances of the case the LD CIT(A) was dismiss appeal as non-maintainable against the principal

Sunil Kumar Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(3), Ghaziabad

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Sunil Kumar Sharma, Vs Ito, 98/4, Double Storey, Ward-2(3), Govind Puri, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Awkps4448J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Srivastava, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th May, 2018 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A) In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Limine On Account Of Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By 34 Days.

file the appeal for which the delay occurred. 5. However, the CIT(A) did not find the explanation satisfactory. She held that condonation of delay is not a matter of right since the assessee has failed to show 2 reasons of delay on the last day of limitation and, thereafter ... appeal for which the delay occurred. I find, the ld.CIT(A) rejected the above submission of the assessee on the ground that condonation of delay is not a matter of right since the assessee has failed to show reasons of delay on the last day of limitation and, thereafter

Gautam Budha Society for Social Welfare, Noida vs. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2017-18

High Court in the case of Bharat Auto Center v. CIT, 282 ITR 366 (Alld.). 5. Learned DR fairly conceded to allow the condonation of delay in view of the facts pleaded by the assessee. While recording the same and also in view of the fact that there ... also that the assessee does not stand to gain by challenging the order dated 17.05.2017 with delay, we are inclined to condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 6. It is submitted by the ld. AR that on the very same set of facts as were

Harish Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ghaziabad

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

Form is not a certified copy, therefore, there is an unjustifiable delay in filing of the appeal. According to the Ld. CIT(A), condonation of delay is not a matter of right since the assessee has failed to show reasons of delay on 4 ITA.No.8489/Del./2019 Shri Harish Tyagi ... side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while condoning the delay has laid down the following guidelines : Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by 1. lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay

Bio Med Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary

been filed after the period of limitation and, accordingly, barred by limitation. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The ld. counsel for the assessee stated that Shri S.P. Garg, Managing Director of the assessee company handed over ... assessee to circumvent due process of law and, therefore, the delay should be condoned. 6. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay and vehemently stated that the assessee has intentionally filed the appeals beyond the period of limitation and has no justifiable cause for delay

Bio Med Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 2, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary

been filed after the period of limitation and, accordingly, barred by limitation. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The ld. counsel for the assessee stated that Shri S.P. Garg, Managing Director of the assessee company handed over ... assessee to circumvent due process of law and, therefore, the delay should be condoned. 6. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay and vehemently stated that the assessee has intentionally filed the appeals beyond the period of limitation and has no justifiable cause for delay