“condonation of delay”

Sub Divisional Office Civil Panipat, Panipat vs. ITO TDS, Karnal

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

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

Canara Bank, Gurgaon vs. DCIT (TDS), Gurgaon

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Canara Bank, Vs. Dcit Main Branch, Railway Road, Tds Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Rtkc01324B (Appellant) (Respondent)

grounds of appeal:- “1. The learned CIT(Appeals) did not took the facts and law of the case while rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred the law and facts of the case while rejecting the appeals.” 3. Brief facts of the case

Vidya Sagar Dwivedi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 2(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Kantassessment Year : 2011-12 Vidya Sagar Dwivedi, Vs Ito, Fh-1, Santi Nagar, Dwivedi Market, Ward-2(5), Nandgram, Ashram Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh-201003. Pan-Akvpd5006C Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. R.K.Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 02.07.2021

rejected on the ground of delay by Ld.CIT(A). It is also noticed that Ld.CIT(A) has recorded that no application seeking condonation of delay was filed by the assessee. Further, it is also noticed that Ld.CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee had not made payment of taxes ... appeal is restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for considering the appeal afresh and giving opportunity for filing application for condonation of delay. 4. Considering these facts, we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh

Zte Corporation, Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon

delay of 274 days in filing of appeal by the Assessee for AY 2016-17. The Assessee had preferred an application for condonation of delay wherein it has been stated that the order of the CIT (A) dated 20.08.2019 was received by the Assessee on the communication address ... Paragraph 11 and 12 of the application for condonation of delay it is submitted that immediately after getting the information regarding the order being passed by the CIT(A), the assessee decided to file an appeal before the Tribunal and designated Mr. Cheng Yu Xiang, an authorised signatory to coordinate

Zte Corporation, China vs. JCIT (OSD) International Taxation, Gurgaon

delay of 274 days in filing of appeal by the Assessee for AY 2016-17. The Assessee had preferred an application for condonation of delay wherein it has been stated that the order of the CIT (A) dated 20.08.2019 was received by the Assessee on the communication address ... Paragraph 11 and 12 of the application for condonation of delay it is submitted that immediately after getting the information regarding the order being passed by the CIT(A), the assessee decided to file an appeal before the Tribunal and designated Mr. Cheng Yu Xiang, an authorised signatory to coordinate

DCIT, Int. Tax., .Circle Gurgaon, Gurgaon vs. Zte Corporation, China

delay of 274 days in filing of appeal by the Assessee for AY 2016-17. The Assessee had preferred an application for condonation of delay wherein it has been stated that the order of the CIT (A) dated 20.08.2019 was received by the Assessee on the communication address ... Paragraph 11 and 12 of the application for condonation of delay it is submitted that immediately after getting the information regarding the order being passed by the CIT(A), the assessee decided to file an appeal before the Tribunal and designated Mr. Cheng Yu Xiang, an authorised signatory to coordinate

Homes at Leisure LLP, Gurgaon vs. DCIT - CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

been submitted and also explained by the Appellant in the course of Appellate Proceedings. The CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the condonation of delay in fding the appeal, although there was a sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in filing. 2. That on the facts ... appropriate and therefore resorted to section option for filing the appeal before the Learned CIT(A). 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The Learned

The Co-Operative Company Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

there is a delay of 44 days in filing the appeal for AY 2006-07 before the Tribunal, for which necessary application for condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed at the time of filing of the appeal explaining reasons for delay in filing appeal ... appeal in time. We are of the view that there was sufficient cause for the Assessee in filing the appeals belatedly. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the same. 6.0 Shri Salil Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Assessee, at the outset, relied

M/S. the Cooperative Company Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

there is a delay of 44 days in filing the appeal for AY 2006-07 before the Tribunal, for which necessary application for condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed at the time of filing of the appeal explaining reasons for delay in filing appeal ... appeal in time. We are of the view that there was sufficient cause for the Assessee in filing the appeals belatedly. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the same. 6.0 Shri Salil Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Assessee, at the outset, relied

M/S. the Cooperative Company Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

there is a delay of 44 days in filing the appeal for AY 2006-07 before the Tribunal, for which necessary application for condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed at the time of filing of the appeal explaining reasons for delay in filing appeal ... appeal in time. We are of the view that there was sufficient cause for the Assessee in filing the appeals belatedly. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the same. 6.0 Shri Salil Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Assessee, at the outset, relied

M/S. the Cooperative Company Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

there is a delay of 44 days in filing the appeal for AY 2006-07 before the Tribunal, for which necessary application for condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed at the time of filing of the appeal explaining reasons for delay in filing appeal ... appeal in time. We are of the view that there was sufficient cause for the Assessee in filing the appeals belatedly. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the same. 6.0 Shri Salil Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Assessee, at the outset, relied

Manish Bhardwaj, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed and restored back to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

wherein the ld. CIT (Appeals) noted that assessment order was served on the appellant on 02nd March, 2015. The assessee furnished request for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal which is reproduced by the ld. CIT (Appeals) in para No. 2.1 of the order. The crux ... appeal for which intervention of Hon’ble High Court was also sought. Therefore, in our view the ld. CIT (Appeals) should have condoned the delay in these appeals. Further the final opportunity granted by the ld. CIT (Appeals) could also not be communicated to the assessee as mentioned

Manish Bhardwaj, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed and restored back to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

wherein the ld. CIT (Appeals) noted that assessment order was served on the appellant on 02nd March, 2015. The assessee furnished request for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal which is reproduced by the ld. CIT (Appeals) in para No. 2.1 of the order. The crux ... appeal for which intervention of Hon’ble High Court was also sought. Therefore, in our view the ld. CIT (Appeals) should have condoned the delay in these appeals. Further the final opportunity granted by the ld. CIT (Appeals) could also not be communicated to the assessee as mentioned

Manish Bhardwaj, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed and restored back to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

wherein the ld. CIT (Appeals) noted that assessment order was served on the appellant on 02nd March, 2015. The assessee furnished request for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal which is reproduced by the ld. CIT (Appeals) in para No. 2.1 of the order. The crux ... appeal for which intervention of Hon’ble High Court was also sought. Therefore, in our view the ld. CIT (Appeals) should have condoned the delay in these appeals. Further the final opportunity granted by the ld. CIT (Appeals) could also not be communicated to the assessee as mentioned

Manish Bhardwaj, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed and restored back to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

wherein the ld. CIT (Appeals) noted that assessment order was served on the appellant on 02nd March, 2015. The assessee furnished request for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal which is reproduced by the ld. CIT (Appeals) in para No. 2.1 of the order. The crux ... appeal for which intervention of Hon’ble High Court was also sought. Therefore, in our view the ld. CIT (Appeals) should have condoned the delay in these appeals. Further the final opportunity granted by the ld. CIT (Appeals) could also not be communicated to the assessee as mentioned

Ankush Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyita No. 186 /Del/ 2021 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Ankush Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward-40 (1) H-4 & 5/88, Suvidha Kunj, Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi 110034 Pan :Aetpg 8736Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24/3/2021 Date Of Order : 24/3/2021

Vishwas Scheme, there was an objection from the authorities to the fact that the appeal is not pending. He therefore prayed to condone the delay and to restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for compliance with the directions given by the Tribunal by order dated ... 29/6/2016 in ITA No. 4697 /Del/ 2014. 5. Though Ld. DR vehemently opposed the condonation of delay, he could not controvert the fact of nationwide lockdown and pandemic and the normal life being upset during that period. Further, Ld. DR cannot plead any mollified is on the part

Sunil Tigga, 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: 2011-12 Sunil Tigga, Vs Ito, 146, B-Block, Nandgram, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad (Up). Ghaziabad (Up). Pan: Akapt2884K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Renu Mukherjee, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 30Th October, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Due To Delay In Filing The Appeal.

good health at the relevant time and after his health was improved, the appeal was filed. However, the ld.CIT(A) without condoning the delay, dismissed the appeal on technical ground treating the same as nonest. He submitted that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given an opportunity ... sufficient cause for note filing the appeal in time. In view of the legal position it is prayed before your honor to condone the delay and accept the appeal. Enclosure – Affidavit.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors reported

Live 4 Better Foundation, Faridabad vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are accordingly, allowed for

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narsimha Chary

peculiarity of the circumstances, prevailing during the pandemic period, it is urged before us that it would be just and proper to condone the delay in entertaining the appeals and to set aside the impugned orders and to restore the same to the file ... disposal on merits after affording an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. 4. Ld. Sr. DR, though opposed the condonation of delay and remanding the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E), he could not controvert the facts pleaded by the assessee or the peculiarity of the circumstances

Live 4 Better Foundation, Faridabad vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are accordingly, allowed for

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narsimha Chary

peculiarity of the circumstances, prevailing during the pandemic period, it is urged before us that it would be just and proper to condone the delay in entertaining the appeals and to set aside the impugned orders and to restore the same to the file ... disposal on merits after affording an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. 4. Ld. Sr. DR, though opposed the condonation of delay and remanding the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E), he could not controvert the facts pleaded by the assessee or the peculiarity of the circumstances

Sanjay Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Ghaziabad

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamble

needs to be set aside. 2. That the impugned order was passed completely on wrong facts and without the considering the reason for condonation of delay, as mentioned in the Form 35 of the Appellant. 3) That the assessment order passed u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Income ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the assessee’s father was ill during that period and 3 afterwards expired. There was a delay