DERA SWAMI JAGAT GIRI TRUST ( REGD),PATHANKOT vs. COMMISSIONER ODF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assesse society is allowed in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

10 B for the assessment year 2017 – 18 without hearing the petition for condonation of delay on merits with the support of written submission which reads as under: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned CIT(Exemptions), Chandigarh wherein the worthy CIT(E) has refused to condone the delay in filing Form No.10B

SANT BABA BODHA NANAD GAUSHALLA COMMITTEE,MANSA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Sant Baba Bodha Nand Gaushalla The Cit(Exemptions), Chandigarh, Committee/Aop (Trust) C/O-J. K. Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-17-E, Gupta, Advocate 4702, Hospital Vs Chandigarh-160017 Bazar, Bathinda, (Punjab)-151005 Pan-Aaits0667H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri J. K. Gupta, Adv Respondent By Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, Cit-Dr

5. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of All Angels Educational Society (supra) while considering the issue whether the Id. CIT (Exemption) has power to condone the delay in filing application for grant of approval under section 10

VEENA KHINDRI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account\nof mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be\ngrasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) has erred in upholding the Order of Assessing Officer, without considering the explanation of the assessee regarding genuineness of activities of the appellant school and its existence solely for the purpose of education only. 2. That

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) has erred in upholding the Order of Assessing Officer, without considering the explanation of the assessee regarding genuineness of activities of the appellant school and its existence solely for the purpose of education only. 2. That

MESERS ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) has erred in upholding the Order of Assessing Officer, without considering the explanation of the assessee regarding genuineness of activities of the appellant school and its existence solely for the purpose of education only. 2. That

MESERS ARYA MODEL SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) has erred in upholding the Order of Assessing Officer, without considering the explanation of the assessee regarding genuineness of activities of the appellant school and its existence solely for the purpose of education only. 2. That

BAHUDER KE TEXTILES AND KNITWEARS ASSOCIATION,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION ) , CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals on merits. 16. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel invited our attention to para 2 of the order of CIT(E), dated 31.07.2018, wherein the Ld. CIT(E) had ITA Nos. 501 & 86/Asr/2019&2020 10 Bahadur Ke Textiles & Knitwear Association v. CIT discussed aims and objects of the company

BAHADUR KE TEXTILES & KNITWEAR ASSOCIATION,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals on merits. 16. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel invited our attention to para 2 of the order of CIT(E), dated 31.07.2018, wherein the Ld. CIT(E) had ITA Nos. 501 & 86/Asr/2019&2020 10 Bahadur Ke Textiles & Knitwear Association v. CIT discussed aims and objects of the company

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

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 in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

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

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 in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

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

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 in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

VOLUNTARY MEDCARE SOCIETY,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS) WARD , JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

5 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, the 19th February, 2020 Sub: Condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in filing of Return of Income for A.Y 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 and Form No. 9A and Form No. 10

SMT KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

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

10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271(l)(b) have been consequential to a search action u/s 132 which led to notices under Section 153A and 142(1), which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

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

10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271(l)(b) have been consequential to a search action u/s 132 which led to notices under Section 153A and 142(1), which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected

SMT KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

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

10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271(l)(b) have been consequential to a search action u/s 132 which led to notices under Section 153A and 142(1), which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

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

10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271(l)(b) have been consequential to a search action u/s 132 which led to notices under Section 153A and 142(1), which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

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

10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271(l)(b) have been consequential to a search action u/s 132 which led to notices under Section 153A and 142(1), which were not complied with, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings which were going on in his case. Hence, the condonation of delay application is rejected